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

[Hector Santos]

Barry Leiba wrote:
> In response to Dave's long note, I think there are (at least) two
> major issues that we need to separate:
> 
> 1. How to move forward and declare working group rough consensus on
> the errata draft.
> 
> 2. Why, specifically, Pasi thinks the "errata" draft requires fresh
> IETF rough consensus.
> 
> I'm going to split these into two new threads; messages forthcoming.
> 

Not sure if you see this as worthy, but there was a few things he said 
that was troublesome, namely:

    ASDP using d= only.

This will not allow for no-signature "i always sign" DKIM=ALL or 
DKIM=DISCARDABLE policy.

In other words, ADSP only applicable when is a VALID signature.

A fundamental change neither of the above options address.


-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com