> 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.
This is the "errata" draft, renamed to "Update" and processed as an RFC, as we decided in the IETF 74 meeting. The new text has all been agreed to on this list over the last week, in the three sub-threads that Dave started... which is why we only need a brief check to make sure they're OK. We're not excluding anything. Barry _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html