> Yes, it SHOULD be, "SHOULD be" And I was saying it MUST be, "MUST be". The worry I have here is that by the time we get to the document update people may not be around anymore to remember why the 'SHOULD' ought to be a 'MUST' and then the wrong change will be made. So better fix the erratum before holding it for doc update. Dismiss it and file a new one if needed; I'm happy to propose some text and submit it. But maybe that's not the right process here - I don't know how it normally works.
Esko -----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 00:27 To: Esko Dijk <[email protected]> Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > The proposed text still needs some work here; I would urge the WG not > to accept this in current form. That said, using normative language in > this specific part certainly helps to clarify the requirements for > implementers. So, I agree, but "Hold for document update" means that we can, effectively update it when we update the document. Yes, the rfc-editor can/will perform XML substitution for the errata process, and so we should care a bit about the text proposed, but my take is that it's better than what we had, and we can tweak this at our leisure. But... feel free to wordsmith! > idevid-issuer: The Issuer value from the pledge IDevID certificate > SHOULD BE included to ensure unique interpretation of the serial- > number. > In the case of a nonceless (offline) voucher-request, an > appropriate value MUST be configured from the same out-of-band > source as the serial-number. Yes, it SHOULD be, "SHOULD be" _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
