Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:00:01 +0100, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: Title : RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures -- Update Author(s) : D. Crocker Filename: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt Pages : 12 Date: 2009-04-03 This updates RFC 4871, DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures. Specifically the document clarifies the nature, roles and relationship of the two DKIM identifier tag values that are candidates for payload delivery to a receiving processing module. The Update is in the style of an Errata entry, albeit a rather long one. I would much prefer that it created a new RFC to _Supersede_ RFC 4871, containing the full text as amended, and with an Appendix listing the changes made (whether in full old/new format like this draft, or otherwise), and pointing out that NO change to the protocol was intended or implied. -- Charles H. Lindsey -At Home, doing my own thing Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: ...@clerew.man.ac.uk snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt
This updates RFC 4871, DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures. Specifically the document clarifies the nature, roles and relationship of the two DKIM identifier tag values that are candidates for payload delivery to a receiving processing module. The Update is in the style of an Errata entry, albeit a rather long one. I would much prefer that it created a new RFC to _Supersede_ RFC 4871, containing the full text as amended, and with an Appendix listing the changes made (whether in full old/new format like this draft, or otherwise), and pointing out that NO change to the protocol was intended or implied. Thanks, Charles; noted. What you say was one of the original choices the chairs posed. This was not, though, the consensus we arrived at in the meeting, and there hasn't been enough support for this choice on the mailing list either. Barry (as chair) ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:53:34 -0400 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: This updates RFC 4871, DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures. Specifically the document clarifies the nature, roles and relationship of the two DKIM identifier tag values that are candidates for payload delivery to a receiving processing module. The Update is in the style of an Errata entry, albeit a rather long one. I would much prefer that it created a new RFC to _Supersede_ RFC 4871, containing the full text as amended, and with an Appendix listing the changes made (whether in full old/new format like this draft, or otherwise), and pointing out that NO change to the protocol was intended or implied. Thanks, Charles; noted. What you say was one of the original choices the chairs posed. This was not, though, the consensus we arrived at in the meeting, and there hasn't been enough support for this choice on the mailing list either. I'll confess that my available mental bandwidth for this wg has been somewhat limited lately, but I hadn't considered that we were not doing a complete replacement of 4871. This is confusing enough without having to do mental gymastics between two RFCs to understand DKIM. Scott K ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt
Scott Kitterman wrote: I'll confess that my available mental bandwidth for this wg has been somewhat limited lately, but I hadn't considered that we were not doing a complete replacement of 4871. This is confusing enough without having to do mental gymastics between two RFCs to understand DKIM. Considering that there isn't actually anything wrong with 4871, you pretty much have your wish by just ignoring errata. Mike ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
