On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Martin Rex <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 03:27:52PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: >> >>> Anyone who believes that this clarification is a "substantive change" >>> has not looked at the existing spec from the perspective of formal >>> correctness. >> >> Nonsense. It is a _correct_ clarification, but specifications can be >> vague in ways that, with the wrong interpretation, fail to >> interoperate. (One could argue that a significant portion of the >> history of DNS is an illustration of that principle.) Correcting such >> vagueness is still a substantive change, and should not be handled >> using an erratum. If you think this is important enough, I urge you >> to write 6698-bis, not abuse the erratum procedure. > > I'm sorry, this is non-sensical.
It is what nearly everyone on the DANE WG mailing list other than you has said. It's not clear how you define "sensical", but in a participatory group like the IETF, "sense" is often determined by what most people are saying. Being in a small minority is fine (I'm often there, as many people know), but that doesn't make the view of the small minority the only sensical one. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
