[cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA
philliph at comodo.com
philliph at comodo.com
Thu Jul 13 06:20:30 MST 2017
On the other hand. If the ADs have an issue they can always just rev the RFC.
> On Jul 12, 2017, at 10:54 PM, Phillip via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> The reason I would like to avoid that is demarcation between IETF and CABForum. Since it is Prague next week, I can ask the ADs if they have concerns. They may not but if I was them, I would.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:43 PM
> To: philliph at comodo.com; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA
> 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>
>> 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
>>> for the status.
>>> --Paul Hoffman
>>> Public mailing list
>>> Public at cabforum.org
>> Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
More information about the Public