[cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA
paul.hoffman at icann.org
Fri Jun 9 17:28:30 UTC 2017
On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> On 06/06/17 09:42, Gervase Markham via Public wrote:
>> 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).
> Further to this, I am advised that although errata numbers are supposed
> to be stable for a given version of the text, this is not to be relied
> upon. I therefore suggest that, once the errata text is stable and
> agreed to be correct, we incorporate the text directly into the BRs.
This seems sensible. Although the RFC Editor's errata system is supposed to be stable and have long-lived tracking, no one has really tested it, and it seems like the CAA requirement might be long-lived. It is thus better to put the diff from the RFC directly into the base requirements.
More information about the Public