So to close on this, I suggest the following that I think meets the points raised by both Paul and myself which I think are equally valid:
1) Reference the IETF Errata in the BR text 2) Archive a copy of the errata on the CABForum site 3) In the references section of the BR, cite the IETF as the primary source and add a link saying ‘archived on' This is the practice in Wikipedia and it does work pretty well. I don’t think this creates any precedents that we might later regret. > On Jul 11, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Paul Hoffman via Public > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <[email protected] > <mailto:[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 > > <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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
