It was discussed in the LAMPS group at the Chicago IETF and with the AD and the WG chairs in private.
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 12:21 PM To: Phillip <[email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Fixup ballot for CAA 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> ] Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 12:05 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Phillip <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
