Shouldn't the ANIMA WG also agree on a new text or a new concept for an
erratum?
And who are "all parties"? For me this is just too vague.
Esko
-----Original Message-----
From: Anima <anima-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 19:54
To: Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de>
Cc: rwil...@cisco.com; anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] Errata 6642: Re: Registrar to MASA connections: SNI
required
Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>> I'm fine with this. But, since it's hold for document update, we
>> don't have to wordsmith it now, as long as we get across the right
>> idea in the patch.
> Well, my understanding is that Rob simply wants a replacement text for
> the Errata that we both agree on so he can update the Errata with it.
All of the text you have proposed is fine with me in the end.
Short of it: all parties always send SNI.
(Registrar must often ignore SNI upon receipt)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
