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

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

Paul, [adding dnsop]

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”

Perhaps time to write an I-D updating RFC 4035 in DNSOP ?

Regards

-éric


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/

From: Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2024 at 20:49
To: Elias Heftrig <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rose, Scott W. (Fed) <[e-mail]>, Rob Austein <[e-mail]>, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4035 (8037)
On 29 Jul 2024, at 13:48, Elias Heftrig wrote:

> as I take it from the IETF120 hallway discussions on the errata an update to the RFCs is a viable way to deal with these flaws as well. Since updates seem to take quite a while until published, the errata, as reported, offer some benefit of warning new implementers about the flaws in the meantime (albeit their visibility being somewhat limited). Serving that purpose, from my own perspective, an errata status of "Held for Document Update" might be the way to go, or else a "Rejected", but with a very clear comment that the reported flaws (errata 8037 and 8038) are in fact an issue and need to be dealt with by an update to the according RFCs. "Held for Document Update" might be a bit clearer in that regard.
>
> If I missed out on any discussions behind the scenes and things have become clearer in the meantime, please don't hesitate to send me an update.

Errata are the wrong way to propose technical changes to a protocol, which is what this errata report does. They cannot be marked as "Held for Document Update" because that presumes that the WG will later fully agree with the proposed changes to the protocol.

The IETF update process is indeed somewhat heavyweight. The decision to make it that way balances long-term protocol stability against flexibility. Regardless, using the errata process (which is poorly defined and not all that well executed) as a way to propose protocol changes is not a good alternative to doing the hard work of proposing updates.

--Paul Hoffman