On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 03:27:52PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: > Anyone who believes that this clarification is a "substantive change" > has not looked at the existing spec from the perspective of formal > correctness.
Nonsense. It is a _correct_ clarification, but specifications can be vague in ways that, with the wrong interpretation, fail to interoperate. (One could argue that a significant portion of the history of DNS is an illustration of that principle.) Correcting such vagueness is still a substantive change, and should not be handled using an erratum. If you think this is important enough, I urge you to write 6698-bis, not abuse the erratum procedure. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
