[ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata
esiegel at constantcontact.com
Fri Mar 20 09:41:26 PDT 2009
From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton [fenton at cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:56 AM
To: DKIM Chair
Cc: DKIM Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata
> The question of whether the "errata" draft's changes are too great
> relates to whether it can be processed using the errata process or
> whether it requires IETF rough consensus. However, in
> http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011421.html , Pasi ruled
> that it requires IETF rough consensus because it might differ from the
> intended consensus when RFC 4871 was approved. So isn't the question of
> the size of the changes moot?
OK, now I'm confused. Can someone define IETF rough consensus? The errata had
a 2/3 majority after the last round of discussion... does the IETF ever get a better
consensus than that?
> Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route.
Given the likely time frame for an updated RFC (-bis or otherwise), I'd like to make really
sure that's the only option. Letting the Errata go through as errata and then following
up with the -bis seemed like the best option to me... something gets out quickly, and
then the more complete update follows.
I'm hoping we can have some discussion around this next week.
More information about the ietf-dkim