On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:23 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> That's not what the RFC Editor erratum system is for. The document > >> reflects what the WG intended to publish at the time, so this isn't an > >> erratum, it's a new change to the specification. > > Yes, as DE you could change it without an erratum. However, an erratum > would > serve as a justification to any reader who followed the definitions and > noticed > a mismatch. > No, I don't believe the designated experts are free to make edits to the registry spontaneously. I've never seen an erratum used to cause a change to a registry, but there's a first time for everything. The thing I note is that you're proposing here an erratum that retroactively claims a change to RFC8601 in anticipation of an RFC that came later (RFC8617). But it doesn't seem like the WG really thought of this at the time it advanced RFC8601 for publication. Indeed, the explicit definition of the "smtp" ptype in RFC8601 Section 2.3 is unchanged from the document it replaced. So again, this doesn't seem like proper use of an erratum. I think this group would make a better use of its time by discussing > rfc7489bis > than rfc8601bis. Indeed, yet here we are... :-) > If group consensus can be enough for the time being, an > erratum can also serve as a reminder. So I ask for it: > [...] > I think we need guidance from our Area Directors here. I think I'm fine with making the change, but I believe this is the wrong way to do it. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
