[ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call

[Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> 2.  The RFC Editor publishes rules for Errata.  So does the IESG.
> You indicate that Pasi is refusing to process
> draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 for two reasons: It introduces new
> terminology and it makes too many changes.  Neither of these is
> included (or excluded) from the RFC Editor or IESG Errata rules.
> Pasi should explain his basis for adding these constraints.

I do not believe the errata meets this criteria, agreed by the IESG
for IETF Stream RFCs:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt:

> 7. Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
> might be different from the intended consensus when the document
> was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or
> Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment.
> Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus,
> or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear
> situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update.

We have already exchanged many off-list emails about this topic, and 
I get the impression that you disagree both with the IESG statement 
itself and my judgement call. If that's an accurate impression,
let's just agree that we disagree -- this is not a topic for
debate on the DKIM WG list.

Best regards,
Pasi