If the errata is "Hold for Doc Update" then the RFC editor won't automatically apply the diff. I'm pretty sure that is only ever done for verified errata.
There are also notes that can go along with the errata to give further information (e.g., what the proposed long-term resolution is) if that is helpful. Thanks, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Esko Dijk <[email protected]> > Sent: 12 December 2022 17:33 > To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>; Max Pritikin (pritikin) > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Rob Wilton (rwilton) > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) > > > 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
