[ietf-dkim] Consensus call on d=/i= clarification

[Dave CROCKER]

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 [1] is ready to go. Process it.

a), please.

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.)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net