[ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

Regarding the "errata" draft, two points: 1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, and Dave has already posted about these. The response looks good. We'll look at a final tally on Friday, 3 April, and ask Dave to push out a new draft then. Please do not discuss thi

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

Hi Barry, At 13:24 26-03-2009, DKIM Chair wrote: >Regarding the "errata" draft, two points: > >1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, >and Dave has >already posted about these. The response looks good. We'll look at a final >tally on Friday, 3 April, and ask Dave to

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

SM wrote: > The three threads created by Dave mention "errata" in the subject > line. FYI, After the close of the comment period, I'll issue a new I-D for the document. It will say Update rather than Errata. My continuing use of the word Errata has merely been habit; I mean the document t

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

Apart from what Dave said... > I don't have any objection about processing the "update" draft as an RFC. Good. > If there is Working Group Consensus about Item 2, I would like > the DKIM Chair to clarify whether any request for a WG call for > consensus for any submitted errata related to Item 1

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

> 1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, and Dave > has already posted about these. The response looks good. The chairs note that Dave's proposed changes have rough consensus. We understand that Dave has a new draft with the current version of those changes ready

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

DKIM Chair wrote: > Dave, please post that, done. assorted formats, as well as a diff for the new version, are at: d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ NOTE WELL: This l

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

On Apr 3, 2009, at 3:30 PM, DKIM Chair wrote: >> 1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, >> and Dave has already posted about these. The response looks good. > > The chairs note that Dave's proposed changes have rough consensus. > We understand that Dave has a n

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

> 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 w

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

Barry Leiba wrote: > 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. Folks, To emphasize:

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

> Looks good to me. Near the end of section 12, I'd change The real-world efficacy of any but the most basic bindings between the SDID or AUID and other identities is not well established, to: The real-world efficacy of bindings between the SDID

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

John Levine wrote: Looks good to me. Near the end of section 12, I'd change The real-world efficacy of any but the most basic bindings between the SDID or AUID and other identities is not well established, to: The real-world efficacy of bindings between the SDI

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

Dave CROCKER wrote: Barry Leiba wrote: 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. Folks, To emph

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

> What are we doing with the other errata in the queue?  Are they to be > included in this update or processed as errata? The other errata are non-controversial and simple, and we'll process them as errata. Barry (as chair) ___ NOTE WELL: This list ope

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

>> Near the end of section 12, I'd change >> The real-world efficacy of any but the most basic bindings between >> the SDID or AUID and other identities is not well established, >> to: >> The real-world efficacy of bindings between the SDID or AUID and >> other identities is not yet estab