At 13:42 20-03-2009, Barry Leiba wrote: >What path we take to publish the errata beyond the ID that it is now, >and whether the WG is behind publishing it without Pasi's (or the >IESG's) approval, are things we'll be discussing in San Francisco and >on the mailing list. I hope that when we leave SF we'll have most of >the answer to these, which answer we'll confirm on the mailing list.
Pasi mentioned that the errata should not be marked as "Approved" using the errata process. He proposed getting the changes through the normal IETF consensus process, and published using the normal mechanisms we use for publishing updates to IETF work. The agenda for the upcoming meeting has an item of discussion about WG-approved errata vs "update" RFC vs "replacement" RFC. It may be better to stop using the term "errata" or "WG-approved errata" unless the WG is still considering submitting the ID or a variant of it as a proper errata. Let's call it "RFC update". We had a long debate over the last month about RFC 4871. I think that it is premature to consider Draft Standard. I note that SSP and the Overview document were set for WGLC in November 2007 according to the charter. The Deployment document is still work in progress. It would be better for the DKIM WG to meet its goals before starting a discussion about Draft Standard. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html