So, just to be clear, I'm approving all of these errata, yes? W
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 6:38 PM, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Original Text > ------------- > | URI | _acct | [RFC6118] | > > Corrected Text > -------------- > | URI | _acct | [RFC7566] | > > 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. > > I remember the rather long discussions about the possible collisions in > URI names between transport and enumservice names, and again about whose > job it is to keep registries in sync. Bu in this case we made a clerical > mistake, and missed the important detail that after the enumservices update > in RFC 6118, some of the types were added in later RFCs. > > Having looked at all of Bernie's errata, I don't think any of them present > subtle errors. There was an eye-glazing list of entries in that document > and we unsurprisingly missed a few details. > > Regards, > John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. > https://jl.ly > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
