[ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata
mike at mtcc.com
Fri Mar 20 12:22:36 PDT 2009
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.
More information about the ietf-dkim