On Apr 3, 2009, at 3:30 PM, DKIM Chair wrote: >> 1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, >> and Dave has already posted about these. The response looks good. > > The chairs note that Dave's proposed changes have rough consensus. > We understand that Dave has a new draft with the current version of > those changes ready to go. Since the changes have already been > agreed to, we think we do not need an explicit Working Group Last > Call on it.
Is this an errata? What is the rush? Why prevent the WG from commenting on finalized changes? It is not clear what now represents "agreement" or "consensus". Excluding any WG input might be overly optimistic. > Dave, please post that, and we'll send it up to Pasi early next week > (when I have time to do a PROTO writeup on it). The delay will also > give the WG a few days to give it a final check. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
