On 13/06/17 15:33, Phillip via Public wrote: > I do not see a good argument for including the text in the BR and a good > reason not to.
Well, you may not consider it a good argument, but the recommendation of ICANN's Principal Technologist is certainly _an_ argument. > One of the things that we have attempted to maintain is a separation of > concerns between CABForum and IETF so that CABForum does not do protocol and > IETF does not do policy. Quite so. CAB Forum should not try and define what the erratum says. This is merely a question of the best way to reference a stable piece of text. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
