Is there a reason not to simply include the errata text as an Appendix to the BRs (thus ensuring the necessary IP protections as well), and then remove that once/if the CAA document is updated?
This seems clearer and with one less dependency - namely, on the CABForum website. On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:30 PM, philliph--- via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
