[cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA
philliph at comodo.com
philliph at comodo.com
Tue Jul 11 10:30:51 MST 2017
So to close on this, I suggest the following that I think meets the points raised by both Paul and myself which I think are equally valid:
1) Reference the IETF Errata in the BR text
2) Archive a copy of the errata on the CABForum site
3) In the references section of the BR, cite the IETF as the primary source and add a link saying ‘archived on'
This is the practice in Wikipedia and it does work pretty well. I don’t think this creates any precedents that we might later regret.
> On Jul 11, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill at hallambaker.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Paul Hoffman via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
> > On 13/06/17 15:33, Phillip via Public wrote:
> >> I do not see a good argument for including the text in the BR and a good
> >> reason not to.
> > Well, you may not consider it a good argument, but the recommendation of
> > ICANN's Principal Technologist is certainly _an_ argument.
> This has nothing to do with ICANN, just the IETF. Phill and I each have decades of experience with the IETF processes and their evolution.
> >> One of the things that we have attempted to maintain is a separation of
> >> concerns between CABForum and IETF so that CABForum does not do protocol and
> >> IETF does not do policy.
> > Quite so. CAB Forum should not try and define what the erratum says.
> > This is merely a question of the best way to reference a stable piece of
> > text.
> Exactly. Phill is saying that he believes that the text in an erratum is stable, and I'm saying that I hope it is true but wouldn't trust that. To make it clearer, you could put the text in the BR saying "this text matches Erratum 5029 to RFC 6844 at the time this revision is published".
> Note that Erratum 5029 has not yet been accepted by the IETF. It and the other two submitted by Phill are still in the "Reported" state, not "Held for Document Update". See <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6844&rec_status=15&presentation=table <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6844&rec_status=15&presentation=table>> for the status.
> --Paul Hoffman
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public