Hi Paul,
is the other thread dealing with these errata on dnsop? Mail archive
searches for RFC8640 and errata report 8038 were unsuccessful. Would be
glad to be pointed to it.
@Eric, does your statement on errata report 8037 (RFC4035) also apply to
the very similar errata report 8038 (RFC6840), which we filed as well?
Best,
Elias
PS: Added my co-authors from the research team where I am a student from
to CC.
On 02.08.24 16:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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
