[ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

[Eliot Lear]

Just to be clear, what will happen next if there is a WGLC is that I 
will post isssues.  There may be quite a number of them.  If on the 
other hand, we can poll on process, I will refrain from posting issues 
later.

Eliot

On 2/12/09 7:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> 1. Jim sent the only posting that I read as simple,  direct support.
>>
>> And Murray also indicated support, at least in part, 
>
> In part is different from complete.
>
> I happen to support your proposal... in part.  Unfortunately, the 
> remainder of my assessment results in non-support.
>
> In any event, it's ok if my assessment isn't fully accurate:  postings 
> about the draft will determine whether in fact there is rough 
> consensus support for it.
>
>
>>> 2. My request was for +1/-1 postings on 
>>> draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02, not a request for a multi-stage 
>>> sequence starting with meta-questions about process.
>>
>> Yes, and I would prefer the multi-stage approach, because I consider 
>> draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 to be excessive to the problem at 
>> hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate tradeoffs on 
>> readability.
>
> And if the rest of the working group agrees with you, then the draft 
> won't attain rough consensus.