[Servercert-wg] Ballot SC 13 version 2

[Ryan Sleevi]

They do - but this is not verified errata, and thus that discussion is not
relevant.

It is marked as Hold for Document Update, which as the status suggests,
means that it's something to be addressed as a normative change in a
subsequent document (which may obsolete 6844). It's equally inconsistent
with the remainder of the language in the BRs, and thus, as I mentioned,
only adds to the confusion.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:27 PM Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple.com> wrote:

> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20181121/991ede73/attachment.html>