On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:36:56PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> So, this errata was filed, but it seems never officially closed out -
> RFC6698 was updated by RFC7671 - "The DNS-Based Authentication of
> Named Entities (DANE) Protocol: Updates and Operational Guidance".
Which addressed the issue by adding the missing requirement.
> What would the WG (especially the submitter) like us to do with this
> errata? I *think* that it can be rejected, but that feels like a
> process issue. Hold for update feels like it might be best, even
> though it's been done?
I am not familiar with (and not terribly interested in) process
issues. The erratum is moot. Do as you think best.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
