On Tuesday, September 13, 2016, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:36:56PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > So, this errata was filed, but it seems never officially closed out - > > RFC6698 was updated by RFC7671 - "The DNS-Based Authentication of > > Named Entities (DANE) Protocol: Updates and Operational Guidance". > > Which addressed the issue by adding the missing requirement. > > Yup. > > What would the WG (especially the submitter) like us to do with this > > errata? I *think* that it can be rejected, but that feels like a > > process issue. Hold for update feels like it might be best, even > > though it's been done? > > I am not familiar with (and not terribly interested in) process > issues. The erratum is moot. Do as you think best. Yeah, this is entirely process wonkery; I just didn't want the WG to be surprised / to give y'all a chance to express a preference (if anyone has one). W > > -- > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
