Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > With the changes in rfc8366bis, can this errata be closed(as rejected)?
I would close it as completed by the document update to 8995?
HFDU... and here is the document update. (not rejected).
But, either way, it is done in rfc8366bis.
>> 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]
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Alternatives:
> ----------------------------------------------------
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
