On Aug 2, 2024, at 06:11, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > As you kindly added me in cc, Iet me chime in (after a couple of PTO days): > per the IESG statement on errata processing [1]: > - as the errata clearly does not represent the DNSEXT WG intent at the > publication time, this erratum cannot be “verified” > - nevertheless, it can be “held for document update” (and I will act > accordingly on Monday if I hear no strong objection) as the IESG statement > includes “any future update of the document *might* consider it”
Ahhh, I had missed that. Earlier, that phrase was meant to indicate that the errata reviewers assumed the fix *would* be included; I'm glad to see that expectation has been toned down. I stand by my statement that the errata process is poorly defined and not all that well executed, but I fully admit that there is little will to fix it in the near future. > Perhaps time to write an I-D updating RFC 4035 in DNSOP ? Already done: see RFC 6840. DNSOP has been discussing the topic that caused this errata in another thread, and there are various arguments about whether there is any real value for changing the MUST to a SHOULD given the wording in other standards-track RFCs. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
