With the changes in rfc8366bis, can this errata be closed(as rejected)? > On Jan 15, 2026, at 9:40 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > >
Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
