[cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA

[Phillip]

I think what Paul was actually saying was 'hold on a sec, nobody seems to
have thought of using this for that'. And it is a fair point. But not the
only one.

Getting the status of the errata changed is a different matter. The reason I
have not wanted to go forward is that every time I get consensus on a text
and submit it, one of the people who reviewed the text comes up with a new
objection/proposal for change. I would like to be sure that this is the
final text before working out who has the speaky stick for making the
change.


-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
via Public
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 11:26 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA

On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Gervase Markham via Public
<public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> On 13/06/17 15:33, Phillip via Public wrote:
>> I do not see a good argument for including the text in the BR and a 
>> good reason not to.
> 
> Well, you may not consider it a good argument, but the recommendation 
> of ICANN's Principal Technologist is certainly _an_ argument.

This has nothing to do with ICANN, just the IETF. Phill and I each have
decades of experience with the IETF processes and their evolution.

>> One of the things that we have attempted to maintain is a separation 
>> of concerns between CABForum and IETF so that CABForum does not do 
>> protocol and IETF does not do policy.
> 
> Quite so. CAB Forum should not try and define what the erratum says.
> This is merely a question of the best way to reference a stable piece 
> of text.

Exactly. Phill is saying that he believes that the text in an erratum is
stable, and I'm saying that I hope it is true but wouldn't trust that. To
make it clearer, you could put the text in the BR saying "this text matches
Erratum 5029 to RFC 6844 at the time this revision is published".

Note that Erratum 5029 has not yet been accepted by the IETF. It and the
other two submitted by Phill are still in the "Reported" state, not "Held
for Document Update". See
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6844&rec_status=15&present
ation=table> for the status.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public