[ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata
mike at mtcc.com
Fri Mar 20 13:59:13 PDT 2009
Barry Leiba wrote:
> Mike says...
>> 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, I take what you're saying to mean that you don't think the
> working group is behind "an end run around the IESG", and that the
> errata should not be saying that it is.
Close. I'm saying that it toes the line of completely inappropriate
for a _working group_ to consider an end run around the IESG, and
that we ought not consider that as an option for the working group.
More information about the ietf-dkim