Jim Fenton wrote: > Dave has proposed a change to the rfc4871-errata draft in response to a > concern from the IESG. Can you clarify what concern the IESG has this > is attempting to address? I'll repeat my original question below since > you may have missed it.
It's attempting to address Cullen's comment (about this being competely incomprehensible to both him and three DKIM implementors he asked) *and* comments from several other ADs (voiced during the IESG telechat) that were similar to Cullen's (it's very hard to tell what is being changed by this document, or who would be impacted by these changes and should read the document). Currently, Section 1 does attempt to briefly summarize the change, explain why it's done and describe the consequences, but after re-reading it now, I think these comments have some merit, and slightly longer explanation would be very helpful to readers who didn't participate in the DKIM WG discussions. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html