delete, not reject, is the proper action for spam. Paul
Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone > On Jun 7, 2024, at 23:51, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Like Victor says Reject as this is a spam errata filing > >> On Jun 7, 2024, at 10:45 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:08:19PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote: >>> >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6698, >>> "The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer >>> Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA". >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> You may review the report below and at: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7975 >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Type: Technical >>> Reported by: PJI <[email protected]> >>> >>> Section: GLOBAL >>> >>> Original Text >>> ------------- >>> unlicense >>> >>> Corrected Text >>> -------------- >>> unlicense >>> >>> Notes >>> ----- >>> 2119 >> >> Neither "unlicense" (USA spelling), nor "unlicence" (much of of the rest >> of the English speaking world) appear in the document, and the erratum, >> as proposed, is a NOOP. The word "License" (US), appears only in the >> RFC2119 boilerplate text. If the intent is to switch to non-USA >> spelling (works for me, but good luck with that!), I don't believe that >> doing that document by document as a "technical" erratum is a productive >> path forward. >> >> The erratum should be rejected. >> >> -- >> Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
