[ietf-dkim] Consensus call on d=/i= clarification
dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Feb 16 15:36:00 PST 2009
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> (There is an open question as to whether
> the erratum I-D fits the RFC editor's erratum model or not,
It does fit, and the timeframe for Errata works much better for the market need
for the correction, than does the timeframe of a revised RFC.
> (a) The erratum I-D  is ready to go. Process it.
For example, Eliot's draft does not attend to the basic requirement for
specifying what is primary output. (Or, for that matter, distinguishing output
from protocol internals.)
More information about the ietf-dkim