[cabfpub] Ballot 195 - CAA Fixup is in the DISCUSSION period (ends April 10)

[Gervase Markham]

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).

Gerv