It is really very difficult to see how we can do anything in IETF when the ADs are telling us we have to finish the existing LAMPS work first.
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:41 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Phillip <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029) On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Phillip via Public <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: This is the update for the CAA errata as approved by Jacob. Please review in case there is another cut n' paste screw up and we can go to a ballot. Do I have a seconder? Could you clarify what you're asking for? You mention a ballot and seconder, but this is just the technical correction. That is, are you looking for folks to review and say "Yes, this addresses the issues" - or are you interpreting it as "Yes, this addresses the issues, and the CABF should make this normatively required" ? For the second half, wouldn't it be more appropriate to endorse support in the IETF to such errata is Accepted/Verified/Held for Document update before going to a CABF ballot?
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
