Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: >> I can understand why this erratum is filed: the (imported) YANG > >definition from RFC 8366 defines "idevid-issuer" as optional, with a >> "MUST include" only for cases where serial-numbers are not unique in >> MASA scope. >> That is not so clear from the RFC 8995 text. So the answer is not >> option 1, which would imply that "is included" == mandatory to include, >> which it is not.
>> So the existing text is not wrong but for some readers it's hard to
>> puzzle all this together. Also there's normative text missing for this
>> item while other items around it do have that.
>> The proposed new text is not correct IMO. So we could hold it for
>> editorial clarification in a new revision of 8995?
I think we should address it in 8366bis, but getting that text right is the
problem.
> If the existing text is not correct, then it does create a problem
> marking it HFDU. I would rather just reject it, and have a new errata
> filed or just wait for a new version of 8995 to address it.
The text is correct, but it has to be read along with 8366.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
