On 10/04/17 17:27, Phillip Hallam-Baker via Public wrote: > As I proposed earlier, can we amend this so that instead of saying: > > "CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags as > specified in RFC 6844, although they are not required to act on the > contents of the iodef property tag." > > We say > > "CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags as > specified in RFC 6844 as updated by errata 4992, although they are not > required to act on the contents of the iodef property tag."
Can you explain how IETF errata work? Surely it must be the case that unadorned references to RFC 6844 actually mean "RFC 6844 as updated by any errata"? Otherwise, every reference would have to be updated every time there was an erratum, which rather defeats the point of an erratum process (as opposed to issueing a whole new, fixed RFC). Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
