On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:31 AM, [email protected] (Martin Rex) wrote: > Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >> This is not an erratum, it is a proposal to add operational guidance >> for how TLS servers should act when an associated TLSA record of a >> certain type would be used. The guidance is correct, but it is not >> an erratum. > > Erratums _include_ omissions.
I understand why you might feel that way, given how often your positions are not supported in WGs and yet you repeat them nearly endlessly. However, that's not what the RFC Errata system is designed for. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
