<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:41 AM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Phillip <philliph@comodo.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Phillip via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>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.<br><br>Do I have a seconder?<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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" ?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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? <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>