Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8552 (7064)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 8/9/2022 2:41 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 1) There is clear evidence that all the references to RFC 6118 I 
> pointed out in the errata recently filed are incorrect; RFC 6118 does 
> not even mention these labels in question. In addition, RFC 6118 has 
> nothing to do with "transports".

As I tried to indicate in my original note to you, the issue I'm raising 
is not to contest this new -- actually old -- reference, but to note the 
absence of documentation of the basis for choosing and therefore is not 
reliably replicable.  This choices for this set of citations is not 
straightforward and so the logic for the choice needs to be clear, not 
just in an email exchange, but in the RFC.

Again, this issue is underscored by the facts that a) the citation now 
deemed correct was already used once in the table and then rejected, and 
b) there have been 3 different citations.

This means that it is clear that the basis for the choice is not clear.  
If it isn't clear, it isn't 'interoperable', in terms of producing 
reliable choices.


> Unfortunately, I completely missed the process of RFC 8552,

While it's always nice to have the author of a relevant document 
participate, the IETF specification process is not supposed to be so 
fragile that it is required.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net