On 8/9/2022 2:41 AM, ber...@ietf.hoeneisen.ch wrote:
1) There is clear evidence that all the references to RFC 6118 I
pointed out in the errata recently filed are incorrect; RFC 6118 does
not even mention these labels in question. In addition, RFC 6118 has
nothing to do with "transports".
As
Dave,
1) There is clear evidence that all the references to RFC 6118 I pointed
out in the errata recently filed are incorrect; RFC 6118 does not even
mention these labels in question. In addition, RFC 6118 has nothing to do
with "transports".
2) It is also pretty obvious that the ENUM
On 8/8/2022 4:10 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
In any event, the underlying references make it quite clear why
Bernie's fixes are the right ones.
The citation was in the table once before, during document development.
And was then changed. Across the drafts, there were /three/ different
RFC
I don't recall that anyone judged it incorrect. I think we just made a
clerical error.
absent a recollection -- or documentation -- the proffered assessment lacks a
basis.
I don't recall documentation or even recollection of why those entries
changed from one draft to the next. I do
On 8/8/2022 3:57 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I don't recall that anyone judged it incorrect. I think we just made
a clerical error.
absent a recollection -- or documentation -- the proffered assessment
lacks a basis.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
So, for example, why is this latest reference correct this time, when it was
judged incorrect, the last time is was used for the entry?
I don't recall that anyone judged it incorrect. I think we just made a
clerical error.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The
On 8/8/2022 2:03 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
So, just to be clear, I'm approving all of these errata, yes?
As I noted privately, there is a history with this list of RFC
references that demonstrates something akin to whimsy, but, at the least
indicating a lack of a clear and shared basis for
So, just to be clear, I'm approving all of these errata, yes?
That's what I'd do.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 6:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Dave Crocker wrote:
Original Text
-
| URI | _acct | [RFC6118] |
Corrected Text
--
| URI | _acct |
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 wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Original Text
> -
> | URI | _acct | [RFC6118] |
>
> Corrected Text
> --
> | URI | _acct | [RFC7566] |
>
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:
On 8/3/2022 9:48 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
This seems to be the mail thread which discusses 7566/6118 :
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/d5KQEP1Ud1TxQpanNMY2_b0CpL8/
that's the second and more substantial thread.
The first brief one began with:
This seems to be the mail thread which discusses 7566/6118 :
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/d5KQEP1Ud1TxQpanNMY2_b0CpL8/
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 12:13 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/2/2022 8:04 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Bernie Hoeneisen
>
>
>
On 8/2/2022 8:04 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Bernie Hoeneisen
Section: 4.1.2.
Original Text
-
| URI| _acct | [RFC6118] |
Corrected Text
--
| URI| _acct | [RFC7566] |
Notes
-
This looks correct to me.
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8552,
"Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of
Attribute Leaves".
--
You may review the report below and at:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8552,
"Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of
Attribute Leaves".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7064
15 matches
Mail list logo
