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

Phillip philliph at comodo.com
Tue Jun 6 14:52:32 UTC 2017

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>

More information about the Public mailing list