On Jul 14, 2026, at 09:58, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > Personal view only: > Yes, errata should not be used to fix change WG consensus after the fact - > but what I think would be reasonable in situations like this is to mark the > errata as Verified, and change the errata text to something like: > "NOTE: This errata is a place holder. A security issue was discovered which > is discussed below. A new document which updates this RFC is being prepared > to address this issue, please see draft-foo" > > Yes, this is technically not the right way to use errata, but I think that it > falls into "do the right thing" territory. Obviously, confirming with the RFC > Ed that this won't make them sad seems like a good idea too...
The technically right way also tells anyone seeing the erratum report exactly what is happening is to mark it as Hold For Document Update. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
