Hi all, On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 10:29, Tim Bruijnzeels <t...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> Hi Warren, all, > > I (co-author) agree that this was an oversight. I have no objections to > the change. > > However.. I haven't checked, but beware that current implementations might > fail to parse the file if a "comment" member is added here, if they are > (overly) strict. I expect that most will simply ignore this member. Perhaps > it's wise that this is verified before finalising the errata. A similar concern was expressed (in opposition of) tidying up a missing constraint in ROA EE certificates: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/yGj8xJh9h-krcJXtW-xuTBeSnf4/ I think the working group needs to decide on a few questions in both cases: 1) was it the intent to permit AS Resources / forbid Comments? 2) is any known running code going to fall over - if the errata is approved? 3) have there been ROAs / SLURM files in the observable universe which would suddenly be “out-of-spec”, if the errata is approved? Kind regards, Job
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
