[ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call
hsantos at santronics.com
Tue Mar 10 07:39:17 PDT 2009
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
In other words, ADSP only applicable when is a VALID signature.
A fundamental change neither of the above options address.
More information about the ietf-dkim