Jim Fenton wrote: > Dave CROCKER wrote: >> Are there other changes to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata being proposed? > > I believe the Chairs requested that the other, non-controversial, errata > be incorporated into this draft. Is that (editorial) work ongoing?
No, they didn't: > DKIM Chair wrote: ... >> 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. That does not mention a bis and it does not cite the items sitting in the RFC Editor's Errata queue. I think there is some confusion about the resolution of draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata with the development of RFC4871bis. And while there has been some reference to a bis effort, it's been consistently -- and I believe correctly -- kept separate. Let's resolve the draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata content issues and then move on to focus on a bis effort. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
