This addresses an important clarification point.
Strictly speaking it's just a clarification what is already specified.
Given how the protocol works, it's impossible for a Pledge to include a
correct SNI, and impossible to host a Registrar virtually (which depends
on SNI) and get it working / interoperating with all potential Pledges.
Still these are things implementers might not realize at first. (Us
included, possibly) So clarifying this would save some headaches and
lost time.
So setting to 'verified' is an option although editorially the added
sentence seems to miss a word (e.g. "as per" instead of "per") and
there's a weird backslash after "virtual".
I'm also ok with HFDU if need be.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6648
Esko
On 13-1-2026 06:35, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
Hi Michael,
Picking up on this errata, my read is that the change is significant.
For the change to be verified, it has to be editorial in nature, which
this is not. I can mark it HFDU though.
Does anyone have any objection to marking this errata as such? I will
wait for the customary 2-week period. If no objections are received, I
will proceed with marking it as HFDU.
Cheers.
On Jan 2, 2025, at 10:44 AM, Michael Richardson
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I filed this errata in 2021:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6648
It never got marked as verified, so it does not appear in the patched
RFC.
Could it get verified please?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh
networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT
architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
--
*IoTconsultancy.nl* | Email/Teams: [email protected] | +31 6
2385 8339
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
