[dnsext] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4035 (7972)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Rebecca, indeed a change of “must” into a “MUST” is not really editorial in an IETF document.

You put the original authors in cc, so, I will trust their opinions. But, it seems to me that the intent was really a simple “must” (lowercase).

Regards

-éric

From: Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 7 June 2024 at 13:46
To: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4035 (7972)
Hi Erik and Éric,

We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/)

Note that there has been some discussion about this erratum. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsext/?q=7972.

Also note that we are sending this to both of you as ADs of the Internet Area as the dnsext WG has concluded.

You may review the report at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7972

Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/

Further information on errata can be found at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

Thank you,

RFC Editor/rv


> On Jun 5, 2024, at 7:37 PM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4035,
> "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7972
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Nate Choe <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 4.2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>   Security-aware resolvers MAY query for missing security RRs in an
>   attempt to perform validation; implementations that choose to do so
>   must be aware that the answers received may not be sufficient to
>   validate the original response.  For example, a zone update may have
>   changed (or deleted) the desired information between the original and
>   follow-up queries.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   Security-aware resolvers MAY query for missing security RRs in an
>   attempt to perform validation; implementations that choose to do so
>   MUST be aware that the answers received may not be sufficient to
>   validate the original response.  For example, a zone update may have
>   changed (or deleted) the desired information between the original and
>   follow-up queries.
>
> Notes
> -----
> "MUST" is a key word according to RFC 2119/BCP 14 and should be capitalized.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC4035 (draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-09)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions
> Publication Date    : March 2005
> Author(s)           : R. Arends, R. Austein, M. Larson, D. Massey, S. Rose
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : DNS Extensions
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>