>> A quick point of order here: This is based on errata #1532 which is >> "Held for Document Update". Are we free to change the proposed >> semantics that are described there, which do allow for a back-compatibility >> interpretation? > > The errata are suggested changes; 4871 is silent on how to handle > this. Whatever text we put in should clarify the handling.
Further to this: I've just located the discussion of erratum 1532 -- from 22 to 25 July, starting here: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q3/013778.html Jim made the same objection then as he is now (surprise!: he's being consistent), and we never resolved the issue. We could leave it unresolved then, because we marked the erratum "hold for document update." But now it's document update time, so we have to resolve it. Everyone, please weigh in on how you would like to see this issue resolved. Perhaps: 1. Say nothing. 2. Use Tony's text, which is in 4871bis now. 3. Use my text or some variant of it (and is it MUST, or SHOULD?). 4. Something else...? Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
