[cabfpub] Results on Ballot 187 - Make CAA Checking Mandatory

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Phill <hallam at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In case we also need to update the RFC number.
>

That would be the first time I've ever seen something like that in the IETF
produced from such an errata, short of going through a -bis phase with
appropriate participation. "Hold for document update" is "More discussion
required"

But, again, that doesn't conflict with what Gerv has proposed, so I'm
uncertain of why you see it's necessary to make progress on a simple matter
in order to solve a complex matter.


> Though what we should do in any case is to reference RFC 6884 and
> successors
>

I disagree, but this is probably neither the time nor the medium for that
discussion with you. To the original point: You specifically requested Gerv
postpone a simple and clear clarifying ballot that aligns intent and past
discussion with text. There was ample discussion of this in the Forum,
there was no dissent expressed, and we can reasonably achieve this progress
in two weeks if your request is ignored. Your description of the things you
plan to do can and will proceed independent of that, and will not conflict
with such a ballot, so again, I ask: Why do you believe it's necessary to
hold off?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170309/739bd5b8/attachment-0002.html>