Subject: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:00:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures -- Update
	Author(s)       : D. Crocker
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2009-04-03

This updates RFC 4871, DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures.
Specifically the document clarifies the nature, roles and
relationship of the two DKIM identifier tag values that are
candidates for payload delivery to a receiving processing module.
The Update is in the style of an Errata entry, albeit a rather long
one.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:56:24 -0400

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-03.txt

As noted in my other post, I'll be doing the PROTO writeup on this
early next week, so we have a few days to give it a check and make
sure Dave got all the updates right.  Please have a look, and post to
this thread if there are errors based on what we agreed to over the
last week.

Barry (as chair)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:18:03 +0100

> The Update is in the style of an Errata entry, albeit a rather long

I would much prefer that it created a new RFC to _Supersede_ RFC 4871,  
containing the full text as amended, and with an Appendix listing the  
changes made (whether in full "old/new" format like this draft, or  
otherwise), and pointing out that NO change to the protocol was intended  
or implied.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:53:34 -0400

> otherwise), and pointing out that NO change to the protocol was intended

Thanks, Charles; noted.  What you say was one of the original choices
the chairs posed.
This was not, though, the consensus we arrived at in the meeting, and
there hasn't been enough support for this choice on the mailing list
either.

Barry (as chair)

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:41:12 -0400

>there hasn't been enough support for this choice on the mailing list

I'll confess that my available mental bandwidth for this wg has been 
somewhat limited lately, but I hadn't considered that we were not doing a 
complete replacement of 4871. This is confusing enough without having to do 
mental gymastics between two RFCs to understand DKIM.

Scott K

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:41:40 -0700

> mental gymastics between two RFCs to understand DKIM.

Considering that there isn't actually anything wrong with 4871, you 
pretty much
have your wish by just ignoring errata.

       Mike