[dane] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6698 (7975)

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Sat, 08 June 2024 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D55C1C4D5E for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dukhovni.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V7sLaW6yQ1ll for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chardros.imrryr.org (chardros.imrryr.org [144.6.86.210]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFCECC169418 for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dukhovni.org; i=@dukhovni.org; q=dns/txt; s=f8320d6e; t=1717814718; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to : from; bh=tHZB+7IiRmc1lXuyW+7WDbLD2kFptRh9fVYQp6rOEB4=; b=kNh+FwGNZhQc05T+XFNVNI5tbqwS4fhluXlARE2NalgvmLlDS9tkIxs+Y/8mfMWqprxiv fWhmnvnkdL6yOXfsyP3t+Xhf33WPoBh8ejqiNcQET08Xzmg37Nb4K+Z1k0aFY83VsCLV1q7 GyrybP4jVtX26DVhwjOShi9pXIFrJ54=
Received: by chardros.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DB03A8DF253; Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:45:18 +1000 (AEST)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:45:18 +1000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID: <ZmPFvvdj5DWO49Ko@chardros.imrryr.org>
References: <20240607210819.87553204E22@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240607210819.87553204E22@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID-Hash: 66JRHGKVGHPM3NGSA4OYD7G6N7YSEHPL
X-Message-ID-Hash: 66JRHGKVGHPM3NGSA4OYD7G6N7YSEHPL
X-MailFrom: ietf-dane@dukhovni.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dane.ietf.org-0; header-match-dane.ietf.org-1; header-match-dane.ietf.org-2; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, debcooley1@gmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io, prod@currently.com, dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [dane] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6698 (7975)
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/TXyr7ecQgTjkJ76D3lvJpRD_BBA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dane>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dane-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dane-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dane-leave@ietf.org>

On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:08:19PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6698,
> "The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer
> Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7975
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: PJI <prod@currently.com>
> 
> Section: GLOBAL
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> unlicense 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> unlicense 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> 2119

Neither "unlicense" (USA spelling), nor "unlicence" (much of of the rest
of the English speaking world) appear in the document, and the erratum,
as proposed, is a NOOP.  The word "License" (US), appears only in the
RFC2119 boilerplate text.  If the intent is to switch to non-USA
spelling (works for me, but good luck with that!), I don't believe that
doing that document by document as a "technical" erratum is a productive
path forward.

The erratum should be rejected.

-- 
    Viktor.