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

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Gervase Markham via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> 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).
>

Only if they're accepted. Some errata remain "Hold for Document Update"
meaning they would semantically change the document, require further
discussion and WG chartering, and would not be in force.

So no, it doesn't mean what you described :)

I also don't think we should hold for PHB's errata. We've already seen
there are issues with it. I think it's important and proper to discuss and
continue discussing, but I don't think it's worth holding this ballot up
on. I have yet to hear how proceeding with this ballot negatively impacts
that other ballot, other than it'd be nice if they were together. But
ballots are/should be "cheap", and there's no reason to link the two, given
their lack of conflict.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170410/dacdd055/attachment-0003.html>