On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:54:35 -0700 Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: >Folks, > >Question to the working group... > > >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? > > >Unless I've missed or misread other postings, the only item lodged, so far, >has >been Jim Fenton's suggest that the UAID acronym be replaced, and discussion >about that is proceeding. > >Are there other changes to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata being proposed? >
I won't propose any. I don't have time to do a proper job of rewriting it. I think it alters the IETF conensus view via errata and adds needless complexity. Silence or lack of change proposals does not equate to thinking the current draft is good. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
