[cabfpub] Fixup ballot for CAA

[Gervase Markham]

On 05/06/17 18:06, Geoff Keating via Public wrote:
> Perhaps we should have a general rule that all RFC references mean a reference to the RFC plus all approved errata?

So the problem, as far as I can see, that RFC errata have 3 possible
final states - Verified (i.e. accepted, approved), Rejected, and "Hold
for Document Update". Errata which make a breaking change, as this one
does, cannot be Verified - it's not allowed. You need to issue a whole
new RFC. And I assume PHB doesn't want to do that before he's had the
necessary discussions to spec the improved search algorithm.

So unless we want _3_ versions of the CAA RFC, we basically need to
accept a patch into our standard even though the relevant erratum is not
Verified, because it cannot be.

So if and when we do think PHB's algorithm tweak is both stably defined
and an improvement, then amending the BRs to specifically incorporate
the erratum seems like the right fix, because that erratum can not be
Verified (which would mean it was automatically incorporated).

Gerv