Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.
+1
I think it's rather premature to presuppose that we have any sort of
consensus about any -bis changes as the people that those changes affect
are most likely completely clueless that a -bis document is even on the
working group's agenda. AFAIK it is not even in the _charter_, so how
could a more casual but interested party be expected to know?
At the very least, it seems to me that this decision can wait for
the meeting next week to get a sense of the room. Rechartering
and an update to the DKIM wg web page also seems like a prerequisite
to making -bis changes. After all, this working group was all but
winding down a month or two ago.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
