On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 06/06/17 09:42, Gervase Markham via Public wrote: >> So if and when we do think PHB's algorithm tweak is both stably defined >> and an improvement, then amending the BRs to specifically incorporate >> the erratum seems like the right fix, because that erratum can not be >> Verified (which would mean it was automatically incorporated). > > Further to this, I am advised that although errata numbers are supposed > to be stable for a given version of the text, this is not to be relied > upon. I therefore suggest that, once the errata text is stable and > agreed to be correct, we incorporate the text directly into the BRs.
This seems sensible. Although the RFC Editor's errata system is supposed to be stable and have long-lived tracking, no one has really tested it, and it seems like the CAA requirement might be long-lived. It is thus better to put the diff from the RFC directly into the base requirements. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
