Yup, I agree. While what is being proposed may be the right thing to do, the Errata process is not the appropriate way to accomplish this.
>From "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream" ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/ ): "Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be used to change what the community meant when it approved the RFC. Here are some things to consider when submitting an errata report: Errata are items that were errors at the time the document was published -- things that were missed during the last call, approval, and publication process. If new information, new capabilities, or new thinking has come up since publication, or if you disagree with the content of the RFC, that is not material for an errata report. Such items are better brought to relevant working groups, technical area discussions, or the IESG." Robert, if you'd like to propose standardizing SHA-512 for use in DS records please propose this in an Internet Draft — there is a helpful page here: https://authors.ietf.org/en/home . W On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:07 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > This is a purposely technical change to the document, and thus should be > rejected. It is not an errata at all. > > The correct way to ask for a technical change such as this is to first ask > the DNSOP WG, then possibly write a draft. >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
