Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (3192)

2012-04-16 Thread Dave Crocker
+1 /d -- Dave Crocker bbiw.net -Original Message- From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org To: RFC Errata System rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net dcroc...@bbiw.net, tony+dki...@maillennium.att.com tony+dki...@maillennium.att.com, m...@cloudmark.com

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (3192)

2012-04-16 Thread Dave Crocker
raises a small question of needing notes to the editor advising hands off for such segments. /d -- Dave Crocker bbiw.net -Original Message- From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org To: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org Cc: RFC Errata System rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org,

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (3192)

2012-04-16 Thread Dave Crocker
On 4/16/2012 8:10 AM, RFC Editor wrote: Just a heads up that we will be reviewing this one internally with the team to raise our awareness of the issue. Additionally, we agree with Dave, and encourage the inclusion of notes to help avoid such errors in the future. My guess is that the

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (3192)

2012-04-14 Thread Barry Leiba
FWIW, the error was introduced by the RFC Editor, who surely used double-space-between-sentences style, and didn't know that in that particular case, the space matters. And we didn't notice it in AUTH48 reviews. Something we need to remember to check for, in the rare cases where it does matter.