[dnsext] Re: [Ext] [DNSOP] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4035 (8037)

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

Elias,

I will have to read erratum report 8038 (RFC6840) for a definitive answer, but the IESG statement and my explanations about erratum report 8037 probably apply.

Regards

-éric

From: Elias Heftrig <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 2 August 2024 at 17:29
To: Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rose, Scott W. (Fed) <[e-mail]>, Rob Austein <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>, Rob Austein <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Schulmann, Haya <[e-mail]>, Vogel, Niklas <[e-mail]>, Waidner, Michael <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ext] [DNSOP] Re: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4035 (8037)
Hi Paul,

is the other thread dealing with these errata on dnsop? Mail archive
searches for RFC8640 and errata report 8038 were unsuccessful. Would be
glad to be pointed to it.

@Eric, does your statement on errata report 8037 (RFC4035) also apply to
the very similar errata report 8038 (RFC6840), which we filed as well?

Best,

Elias

PS: Added my co-authors from the research team where I am a student from
to CC.

On 02.08.24 16:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2024, at 06:11, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>   As you kindly added me in cc, Iet me chime in (after a couple of PTO days): per the IESG statement on errata processing [1]:
>> - as the errata clearly does not represent the DNSEXT WG intent at the publication time, this erratum cannot be “verified”
>> - nevertheless, it can be “held for document update” (and I will act accordingly on Monday if I hear no strong objection) as the IESG statement includes “any future update of the document *might* consider it”
> Ahhh, I had missed that. Earlier, that phrase was meant to indicate that the errata reviewers assumed the fix *would* be included; I'm glad to see that expectation has been toned down.
>
> I stand by my statement that the errata process is poorly defined and not all that well executed, but I fully admit that there is little will to fix it in the near future.
>
>>   Perhaps time to write an I-D updating RFC 4035 in DNSOP ?
> Already done: see RFC 6840. DNSOP has been discussing the topic that caused this errata in another thread, and there are various arguments about whether there is any real value for changing the MUST to a SHOULD given the wording in other standards-track RFCs.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>