Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus call on d=/i= clarification]

From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:11:00 +0100

> (a) The erratum I-D [1] is ready to go. Process it.
> (b) The erratum I-D [1] is the way to go, but needs work.
>     (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.)
> (c) Eliot's proposal [2] is ready to go. Process it.
> (d) Eliot's proposal [2] is the way to go, but needs work.
>     (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.)
> (e) None of the above.

My vote goes to (a): process this erratum.

I'm afraid to say that I feel the discussion is starting to go in 
circles and the more time is spent discussing what has already been 
discussed and agreed, the more people start joining in the process and 
the more they become confused and start splitting hair. Eliot's 
proposal, whilst a very good effort, might introduce doubt in the 
reader's mind, especially the sentence: "Implementations should not 
rely on the presence of this value or its stability" - no stability = 
unstable = not good - or at least, that's what I think some readers 
will think.

Warm regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html 

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html