On 8/2/2022 8:04 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Bernie Hoeneisen<ber...@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
Section: 4.1.2.
Original Text
-------------
| URI | _acct | [RFC6118] |
Corrected Text
--------------
| URI | _acct | [RFC7566] |
Notes
-----
Wrong reference. Note that is also has an impact to the IANA
registry:https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#underscored-globally-scoped-dns-node-names
Folks,
1. Bernie, thanks for bringing this up
2. Using this case as an example, the history in the attrleaf
development seems concerning. The RFC cited for this entry changes,
over the course of a number of I-D versions. So, in -13 is was RFC
7553, -14 is was RFC 7566, and in -15 it went to RFC 6118.
3. That the published version landed on the wrong choice should raise a
question possibly about process but especially about understanding.
In Spring, 2018 and again in Fall, 2018, there was some focused
discussion (see: dnsop) about _acct, and related strings, and which
citation to use for the enum-related values. The choice bounced around,
as I've cited. This includes having what is now being deemed the
'correct' choice in -14...
Note that none of the cited documents refers to the exact string
"_acct". So there is a derivation process that seems to be unclear. I
believe the attrleaf RFC contains no pedagogy about this, but it
probably should.
Before doing the simple -- but possibly wrong -- thing of agreeing on a
new -- or, rather, returning to an old -- better RFC citation, I suggest
there be some community discussion about the why of the right choice and
consideration of how to document that, this time, this latest choice is
the truly correct one.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
