> If the existing text is not correct, then it does create a problem
> marking it HFDU. I would rather just reject it, and have a new errata
> filed or just wait for a new version of 8995 to address it.
The text is correct, but it has to be read along with 8366.
Agree here that the current text in RFC 8995 Section 5.5 is correct; if
read along with 8366. If the reader doesn't open 8366, it may be
unclear whether the idevid-issuer field is mandatory or optional to include.
The new text proposed by the erratum 7263 is in any case incorrect. E.g.
there's an all-caps phrasing SHOULD BE which isn't RFC 2119 language.
And the inserted MUST is wrong - not required per 8366 and not intended
to be required - and also hard to act on ("you MUST configure an
appropriate value" - but what is 'appropriate' here exactly?).
So maybe best is to reject this erratum.
I commented on the commit also
(https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/commit/64056649c836f7b9fd4094d827e2d04860e41a3e)
- 2 changes look incorrect.
If 8366 already addresses the erratum, why do we need to mention the
erratum in 8366bis ?
Esko
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
