> On Apr 10, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Gervase Markham via Public > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On 10/04/17 17:27, Phillip Hallam-Baker via Public wrote: > > As I proposed earlier, can we amend this so that instead of saying: > > > > "CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags as > > specified in RFC 6844, although they are not required to act on the > > contents of the iodef property tag." > > > > We say > > > > "CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags as > > specified in RFC 6844 as updated by errata 4992, although they are not > > required to act on the contents of the iodef property tag." > > Can you explain how IETF errata work? Surely it must be the case that > unadorned references to RFC 6844 actually mean "RFC 6844 as updated by > any errata"? Otherwise, every reference would have to be updated every > time there was an erratum, which rather defeats the point of an erratum > process (as opposed to issueing a whole new, fixed RFC). > > Only if they're accepted. Some errata remain "Hold for Document Update" > meaning they would semantically change the document, require further > discussion and WG chartering, and would not be in force. > > So no, it doesn't mean what you described :) > > I also don't think we should hold for PHB's errata. We've already seen there > are issues with it. I think it's important and proper to discuss and continue > discussing, but I don't think it's worth holding this ballot up on. I have > yet to hear how proceeding with this ballot negatively impacts that other > ballot, other than it'd be nice if they were together. But ballots are/should > be "cheap", and there's no reason to link the two, given their lack of > conflict.
I updated the errata in response to the typo. I don’t think that changing the description completely would be in order though.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
