I'm getting an out-of-office bounce from Glenn, so adding trust...@ietf.org in the hope that either Kathleen or one of the other trustees is give an answer more quickly.
Thanks, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Sent: 03 April 2023 18:19 > To: kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com; Deen, Glenn > <glenn_d...@comcast.com> > Cc: netmod@ietf.org; The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Subject: draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs errata > > Hi Glenn, Kathleen, > > In addition to discussing draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext in the NETMOD WG > session on Friday (where the conclusion was to go the AD sponsored path), I > also raised this issue with the IESG/IAB at the end of the IETF week, and > someone had the suggestion of filling an errata against the YANG Author > Guidelines (RFC 8407) to add the missing <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and <END > TEMPLATE TEXT> markers to section 3.7.1 of RFC 8407. > > I know that you offered a RFC 8407-bis path, but did you also consider whether > adding these markers as errata (which I would regard as being as in-scope and > appropriate and could be marked as 'verified')? If this approach worked from > your side, and if there are no objections from the authors or NETMOD, then I > was wondering if that could be a more expedient path forward. > > Please let me know if errata would be sufficient from a trust perspective, > otherwise, I'll go the AD sponsored route on Kathleen's draft. > > Regards, > Rob _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
