Hi Michael, As I already indicated, this Errata cannot be Verified. For an Errata to be marked Verified, the change has to justify that not correcting could lead to implementation bugs or significant confusion. By your own admission, this is an “edge case”, and nobody actually tripped over this in testing.
Think of Held For Document Update (HFDU) as a “sticky note” for the next person who writes a revision of this RFC. It serves as a reminder to fix the issue when the document is eventually updated, and only a document like that can update another (8995) RFC. Cheers. > On Jan 14, 2026, at 8:49 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > SNI is mandatory in TLS 1.3. > That's fine (it will always be sent), but it's always wrong for the BRSKI-EST > connection to the Registrar, so the Registrar has to ignore it. I.e., not be > an HTTP 1.1 VirtualHost. > > I filed it because there was an edge case. > Nobody actually tripped over this in testing, but that's probably because > everyone who has written code has been on the list. That won't be true > forever. > > So, I'd prefer it was marked Verified so that the XML can be patched. > I'm unclear if HFDU does that, I thought not. > > This concern started it's life in the operational-considerations document (or > at least, I thought about when writing it), but then became an errata. It > should return to the operational-considerations document (or the merged > version), which perhaps will be an Updates: 8995. > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
