Hi Dave, > On 1 Jun 2019, at 09:18, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/1/2019 10:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM Dilyan Palauzov <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Shall I submit an erratum to RFC7489? >> I would, yes. And this should certainly be recorded as something we need to >> fix for standards track DMARC, whether by chasing down RFC7489 errata or via >> a dedicated issue in this WG's tracker. > > Hmmm... > > The formal rule for errata in the RFC system is rather constrained: Only > errors that mis-specify what was intended are permitted. > > So, errors in thinking or failures to provide for cases don't count as errata.
You are right, but I can always mark this issue as “hold for update”, so that it can be tracked for the -bis document. Best Regards, Alexey > > What this means is that there is no standard way to record the need for > better-performing capabilities or addition of new capabilities or the like. > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
