IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (6227)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Fri, 10 July 2020 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213233A0D0E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 LDzxKNMtMtkA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa5.dc.icann.org (ppa5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F5D93A0D17 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa5.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with ESMTPS id 06AEIGD6007317 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:18:16 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.595.3; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:18:15 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0595.003; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:18:14 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, "mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se" <mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (6227)
Thread-Index: AQHWVpSrGVWw7ZGsK02YWaUdqDja96kBUhQA
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:18:14 +0000
Message-ID: <46066C32-79B1-4478-A77E-CF1F014F2B84@icann.org>
References: <20200710083152.3ED31F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200710083152.3ED31F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_217F2CBE-4653-497C-B9BA-222721462E18"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-10_07:2020-07-10, 2020-07-10 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DfBVgVaHu0lI4ZFaf8tCAmKaoUQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (6227)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:18:23 -0000

This errata should be rejected because it changes the decision of the IETF about the IANA registries. In specific:

> Notes
> -----
> The document clearly has the intention to update the IANA registers, which is also stated in the document, but not in section 6 ("IANA Considerations").

This is not true. There is literally no wording in the text that shows such intention.

If the author of this incorrect "errata" wants the IANA registries to reflect the values in RFC 8624, they should create a new Internet Draft saying such. I believe there will be both support and opposition, but it is a good discussion to have now that we have consensus on what the implementation guidance is.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email