Hi - Do we need the concept of a Defect Report that is different than an errata?
Mike On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 13:34 Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
