[cabfpub] Fixup ballot for CAA

[Ryan Sleevi]

I see. That doesn't sound like the normal IETF process, since decisions are
made on the list, but I look forward to reading more about it, once more
information is publicly available.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Phillip <philliph at comodo.com> wrote:

> It was discussed in the LAMPS group at the Chicago IETF and with the AD
> and the WG chairs in private.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 5, 2017 12:21 PM
> *To:* Phillip <philliph at comodo.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Fixup ballot for CAA
>
>
>
> It sounds like you're saying Jacob's clarifications - which did
> substantially simplify and clarify the language - were ones you don't agree
> with. Is this correct?
>
>
>
> For those not familiar, this is https://mailarchive.ietf.
> org/arch/msg/spasm/vmpi_X9IE8kuRmNEAUo_9ZjiK3Q (and the previous message)
>
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand your remarks "replace the search in the next
> iteration" - can you point to any public discussions or proposals regarding
> this?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Phillip <philliph at comodo.com> wrote:
>
> Jacob commented on Errata 4988 which I fixed (I hope) in 4992.
>
>
>
> At this point, given that this is an errata and given that we are looking
> to replace the search in the next iteration, I prefer not to change the way
> the algorithm is described as that may well introduce a whole new round of
> confusion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 5, 2017 12:05 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Phillip <philliph at comodo.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Fixup ballot for CAA
>
>
>
> It looks like there has been some unaddressed feedback submitted by Jacob
> Hoffman-Andrews regarding the correctness of that Errata. Has that been
> resolved now? I haven't seen any acknowledgement from you on it.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Phillip via Public <public at cabforum.org>
> wrote:
>
> Implementation of CAA turned up an issue to do with the recursive
> treatment of pointer records. An errata has been proposed to fix the
> specification to achieve the processing agreed to be desirable:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4992
>
> I would like to propose a motion to fix this issue so that implementations
> use the search specified in the errata rather than the original text.
>
> We are separately working in IETF to revise the search procedure to make
> use of prefixed records which elides the whole issue which we could not do
> when CAA was first proposed but can now. Unfortunately, that work is
> blocked on the WG finishing its current internationalization work.
>
> Here is a rough draft of the proposed motion. Comments?
>
>
>
> Change the following in section 3.2.2.8 of the Baseline Requirements:
>
> 1) Replace the sentence:
>
> "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."
>
> With
>
> "CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags as
> specified in RFC 6844 as amended by Errata 4992, although they are not
> required to act on the contents of the iodef property tag."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170605/0b4917ba/attachment-0003.html>