On Sep 15, 2023, at 6:01 PM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > >> This is the first time someone has suggested this, even though you're right >> that it is a term we still sometimes here. I think it is unwise to add this >> this late in the review cycle (it's already on the telechat agenda, and a >> new definition would have to go back to the WG), but we'll try to remember >> it if there is a fourth edition of the doc. > > If you coordinate with the AD, you only have to remember until the RFC is > published and then file an errata.
A completely new definition that has not been vetted by the WG is inappropriate for an erratum. > On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an > important term in the current document seems like a better solution. If the WG agrees that this is an important term, sure. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
