IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6840 (4191)

manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu> Tue, 02 December 2014 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <bmanning@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307111A6FC7 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 13:29:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fdv1gRrYGmdh for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 13:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD3E11A8763 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 13:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.32.4.206] ([198.32.4.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB2LSTlH022184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 2 Dec 2014 13:28:39 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1412021603110.25480@tislabs.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:28:29 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4DCACAB-E737-4934-B0EA-3EA5F7121C51@isi.edu>
References: <20141202163646.E4BFC18123F@rfc-editor.org> <alpine.LRH.2.03.1412021603110.25480@tislabs.com>
To: Samuel Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsext/xetwdUg-ZAqvEdasqw3-GG6d0kU
Cc: edward.lewis@icann.org, brian@innovationslab.net, dnsext@ietf.org, ted.lemon@nominum.com, ogud@ogud.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6840 (4191)
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:29:50 -0000

concur with Donald & Sam.  


/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 2December2014Tuesday, at 13:11, Samuel Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com> wrote:

> The errata is correct, but I agree with Donald - the old text is adequate and unlikely to lead to confusion.  (Well ... plenty of people are confused about this particular piece of the spec, but this clarification is unlikely to change that.  I am probably also biased, as the writer of that old text.)
> 
> I have no objection to marking this as verified, but I do not see it as necessary.
> 
> -- Sam
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email