It sounds like you're saying Jacob's clarifications - which did substantially simplify and clarify the language - were ones you don't agree with. Is this correct?
For those not familiar, this is https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/vmpi_X9IE8kuRmNEAUo_9ZjiK3Q (and the previous message) I'm not sure I understand your remarks "replace the search in the next iteration" - can you point to any public discussions or proposals regarding this? On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Phillip <[email protected]> wrote: > Jacob commented on Errata 4988 which I fixed (I hope) in 4992. > > > > At this point, given that this is an errata and given that we are looking > to replace the search in the next iteration, I prefer not to change the way > the algorithm is described as that may well introduce a whole new round of > confusion. > > > > > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, June 5, 2017 12:05 PM > *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Phillip <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Fixup ballot for CAA > > > > It looks like there has been some unaddressed feedback submitted by Jacob > Hoffman-Andrews regarding the correctness of that Errata. Has that been > resolved now? I haven't seen any acknowledgement from you on it. > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Phillip via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Implementation of CAA turned up an issue to do with the recursive > treatment of pointer records. An errata has been proposed to fix the > specification to achieve the processing agreed to be desirable: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4992 > > I would like to propose a motion to fix this issue so that implementations > use the search specified in the errata rather than the original text. > > We are separately working in IETF to revise the search procedure to make > use of prefixed records which elides the whole issue which we could not do > when CAA was first proposed but can now. Unfortunately, that work is > blocked on the WG finishing its current internationalization work. > > Here is a rough draft of the proposed motion. Comments? > > > > Change the following in section 3.2.2.8 of the Baseline Requirements: > > 1) Replace the sentence: > > "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." > > With > > "CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags as > specified in RFC 6844 as amended by Errata 4992, although they are not > required to act on the contents of the iodef property tag." > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
