Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > So: I don't really understand why you've added to 8366bis that it closes > errata 7263.
Yeah, sorry, I should have made that a pull request that would be easier to discuss. I didn't intend to be done... sorry... fixing... sorry about forced push to main to undo. Hah, I didn't even get the errata reference right. https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/pull/101 > Based on what Toerless wrote in his summary, i.e. that 8995 specifies new > inclusion requirements for the Registrar's Voucher Request which were not yet > specified in 8366 (because it was only about Vouchers), it seems that we can > use the 8366bis document as the fastest way to clarify what we meant in > 8995. > But that would require specific text in the I-D somewhere, to explain what > 8995 Section 5.5 did mean, not just mentioning that 8366bis "closes this > erratum". It might be that the text in the idevid-issuer description in 8366bis is already enough. Maybe not. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
