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

[Barry Leiba]

> If we were to come out with a 4871bis *without* also attempting to move
> it forward on the standards track, then I agree that we'd be sending a
> bad message to the industry. But I don't think doing a bis without
> concurrent advancement is being seriously considered -- I'm certainly
> advocating moving it to Draft Standard.

In other words, Tony, you're advocating option 1: put the "errata" out
as an RFC that only makes updates, and reserve the 4871 replacement
for an attempt to go to Draft Standard.

Option 2 is the one you aren't considering seriously.

Barry