[ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata

[Michael Thomas]

Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route.
> 
> Well, he has a preference for /only/ going that route, but he can't actually 
> veto our issuing the Errata under the Errata mechanism.  Anyone can post 
> anything they want under the Errata mechanism.  Some pretty silly stuff has 
> gotten posted, over the years.

I believe that what Dave is suggesting is an end run around the IESG.
In which case, I suggest that the working group insist on s/our/my/g;
above so that it has similar status.

		Mike