The reason I would like to avoid that is demarcation between IETF and CABForum. Since it is Prague next week, I can ask the ADs if they have concerns. They may not but if I was them, I would.
-----Original Message----- From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:43 PM To: [email protected]; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA 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
