On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
This has nothing to do with ICANN, just the IETF. Phill and I each have decades of experience with the IETF processes and their evolution. >> 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. Exactly. Phill is saying that he believes that the text in an erratum is stable, and I'm saying that I hope it is true but wouldn't trust that. To make it clearer, you could put the text in the BR saying "this text matches Erratum 5029 to RFC 6844 at the time this revision is published". Note that Erratum 5029 has not yet been accepted by the IETF. It and the other two submitted by Phill are still in the "Reported" state, not "Held for Document Update". See <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6844&rec_status=15&presentation=table> for the status. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
