[cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)

[Phillip]

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.

 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:41 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Phillip <philliph at comodo.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)

 

 

 

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Phillip via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

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.

Do I have a seconder?

 

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" ?

 

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? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170606/0c884089/attachment-0003.html>