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

[MH Michael Hammer (5304)]

Stephen and Barry, 

I have a procedural question on how the responses to the consensus call
will be evaluated for options a,b,c,d. 

Will it be a+b vs c+d to get a general sense of direction and then
evaluate each option with in an approach or will each option be
evaluated independently (that is, response to a would be considered
separately from responses to b and responses to c evaluated separately
from responses to d)?

Thanks in advance

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:36 AM
> To: ietf-dkim
> Cc: barryleiba at computer.org
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Consensus call on d=/i= clarification
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> We've had some recent discussion about d=/i= on the list
> and a couple of concrete proposals for clarifications to
> make to RFC 4871.
>    - The first is Dave's erratum I-D. [1]
>    - The second is a proposal from Eliot.[2]
> 
> Barry and I would like to see if there's rough consensus
> on one of these, and, if so, we'll then work with Pasi to
> get that processed. (There is an open question as to whether
> the erratum I-D fits the RFC editor's erratum model or not,
> perhaps mostly due to its length, but we'll handle that if/when
> we have WG rough consensus on the meat of the topic. For now,
> ignore the process issues, and let's see what clarification
> we'd like.)
> 
> So, can you please reply to the list with *one* of the
> following opinions, before the end of next Monday, Feb
> 23rd.
> 
> (a) The erratum I-D [1] is ready to go. Process it.
> (b) The erratum I-D [1] is the way to go, but needs work.
>     (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.)
> (c) Eliot's proposal [2] is ready to go. Process it.
> (d) Eliot's proposal [2] is the way to go, but needs work.
>     (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.)
> (e) None of the above.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stephen & Barry.
> 
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata
> [2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011150.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html