This thread has been split from Dave's long note. Here's what I want to try, in order to convert the "majority vote" into what Stephen and I would be happy to call "rough consensus". I have not discussed this yet with Stephen, in the interest of getting it out here more quickly, so he may feel free to object to this and whack me over the head (as Dave has already done).
As I said in my note summarizing where we are, the working group vote between the a/b/c/d choices has taken the simpler errata changes out of the mix and given us draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as the path forward. There were, though, enough votes against it for the chairs to consider it "significant", so: To those who voted against draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata: given, now, that we will be using draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata to move forward, and the other choices are off the table, can you accept draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as written? If not, will you post specific changes, in OLD/NEW format, that would make it acceptable to you? Acceptable changes must keep the sense of the draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata document with regard to the new terminology. Barry -- Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair (barryle...@computer.org) http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html