[Servercert-wg] Ballot SC 13 version 2

[Geoff Keating]

My understanding is that verified errata change the RFC—the conceit is that the RFC always intended to say what the errata corrects it to—so referring to ‘RFC 6844 section 4’ includes any verified errata.

> On 20 Nov 2018, at 11:47 am, Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for clarifying. I tried to explain why such language would not resolve the issue, but apologies if I was not clear enough. By specifying it as worded, this has the issues I mentioned regarding errata. This proposed change is inconsistent with the rest of the BRs regarding 6844, and thus seems like it will only add confusion. I do hope you'll reconsider for these reasons. As it stands, the proposed change - intending to remove ambiguity - only adds it.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3395 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20181120/cc601f4d/attachment.p7s>