Subject: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

From: DKIM Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:24:17 -0400

Regarding the "errata" draft, two points:

1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, and Dave has 
already posted about these.  The response looks good.  We'll look at a final 
tally on Friday, 3 April, and ask Dave to push out a new draft then.

Please do not discuss this point on this message thread; use Dave's three threads 
for it instead.

2. On the process, after discussion with Pasi on the matter, there was an 
overwhelming consensus in the room to move forward by processing the "errata" 
draft as an RFC (with a change in the title to "update" instead of "errata"). 
Pasi has agreed to expedite the handling, so it should get to the RFC editor 
quickly.  We need to confirm that on the mailing list, and in this case, silence 
will be taken as consent.  If there are no objections, it looks like the 3 April 
draft will be that final version.

Please post any objections or process discussions to this thread.

I'll send a separate note about ADSP.

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair  ([email-masked])
http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/

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

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:20:46 -0700

Hi Barry,
>draft will be that final version.

I don't have any objection about processing the "update" draft as an RFC.

The three threads created by Dave mention "errata" in the subject 
line.  If there is Working Group Consensus about Item 2, I would like 
the DKIM Chair to clarify whether any request for a WG call for 
consensus for any submitted errata related to Item 1 will be 
rejected.  I prefer to see the procedure followed so that we can 
close this issue.

The "update" document affects the ADSP, Overview and Deployment 
documents.  Can the DKIM Chair state in which order the documents 
will be processed?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:29:41 -0700

SM wrote:
> line. 

FYI,

After the close of the comment period, I'll issue a new I-D for the document. 
It will say Update rather than Errata.

My continuing use of the word Errata has merely been habit; I mean the document 
that the has been under discussion and I take all discussion about the three 
changes I've asked about as referring to that document...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:45:51 -0400

Apart from what Dave said...

> I don't have any objection about processing the "update" draft as an RFC.

Good.

> If there is Working Group Consensus about Item 2, I would like
> rejected.

No one I'm aware of has any intention of circumventing the WG process.
 Consensus to process "update" (né "errata") as an RFC closes any
consideration of other ways to handle it.

The remaining errata, which were not controversial, will be handled as
errata, as has been planned all along.

> documents.  Can the DKIM Chair state in which order the documents

We're not specifically defining an order.

That said, we believe the effect on ADSP will be small, and I'll have
a note out about that Friday or Saturday, depending upon when I can
get to writing it up.  We expect that ADSP will proceed first, within
the next couple of weeks.

"Deployment" still needs comments, as Tony presented in SF.  We expect
that any necessary changes to "Overview" will go before that, and an
updated version can go back to Pasi soon -- Tony and the other editors
can tell us how that schedule looks.  Deployment will be last of the
three.

In any case, ADSP will not hold up Overview, which would proceed
independent of any unanticipated delay in ADSP.

I don't think any of this should be a surprise.

Barry (as chair)