Re: [Anima] MichaelR/Rob/*: RFC8995 errata concerns
Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) wrote: > Was there any conclusion of what to do here, which I think applies to > errata 6648: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=6648 > I don't think that this is an errata that can be verified, hence I'm > questioning whether "Held for document update" would be both correct > and helpful. Would it be useful to update the text of the errata at > all, or alternatively, I could just point to this thread in the notes. I wrote that errata based upon some discussion at some point about implementing things, and probably my draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations. **The SNI comment is really the Technical update part** I'd like the XML to be patched, so whatever gets that done. -- Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
Re: [Anima] [Errata Verified] RFC8994 (7071)
RFC Errata System wrote: > -- > Status: Verified > Type: Editorial ... > Notes > - > David von Oheimb discovered [1] that section 6.2.2 is self-referential and incorrect regarding the section reference to the ASN.1 module. > The correct section number is 6.2.2.1. works for me. -- Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)
Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > Okay, I can add a clarification to the errata to indicate that RFC 2119 > language is not required for the text to still be normative, and if > this text is updated, the other sections should be updated in a > consistent fashion. If you like. I don't have a strong opinion. Probably we should have used BCP14 language there. > An alternative resolution here is for me to reject the errata, > indicating that the text is still a normative requirement even though > it doesn’t use RFC 2119 language. Specifically, I don’t think that the > existing text is wrong, but consistently using RFC 2119 keywords may > add clarity. -- Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)
re: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7263 I agree that the correct text is: idevid-issuer: The Issuer value from the pledge IDevID certificate MUST BE included to ensure unique interpretation of the serial- number. -- Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
