[cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA

[Ryan Sleevi]

Is there a reason not to simply include the errata text as an Appendix
to the BRs (thus ensuring the necessary IP protections as well), and
then remove that once/if the CAA document is updated?

This seems clearer and with one less dependency - namely, on the
CABForum website.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:30 PM, philliph--- via Public
<public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 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> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Gervase Markham via Public
>> <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>
>> for the status.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>> _______________________________________________
>> Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>