IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8484 (6033)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 31 March 2020 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7BB3A20AF for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 06:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 r4Xwa1_NMd6E for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 06:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f46.google.com (mail-io1-f46.google.com [209.85.166.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D3E53A20AE for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 06:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f46.google.com with SMTP id b12so5355020ion.8 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 06:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9WH1cwhZ+ElLjGKZuLvcdRi8mZIryf+j12TThDB6RMQ=; b=V5Sb3Ku4ydjY9yy61Vb5AvIDxYSDvVZWqqk7Te347XOUfRrML0OhIlRolz0aPU7mtQ aIrFuiawrli5D0hgR1zKgPKUk9jwHZhNZQbXs8utQT7idf7iiYmDZOd6EQbhP4HSs8xc 08AN3GCo6B5YfUpJPKZ+C1nkwgE7LFVyw4xX0KOthW3ssNHQzHJnJGanDjd4H4E2hhvK VwuEykhqM7ost+63OeiAXxxDTwHWf0nCGLed49deHNifNGy/tV/E7lTo74XbuYK9/iuE KgIoBJN0ghzFT5ZuFxXp8n+5siJ5/+QNEPGHyjJeY1Ap/nTgWWaoYsF4XUjWB4W7h2YF PSuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0/piYt20XXVJEB4/nj8DdsinQVagfbtWDcCDaGTGDA4QVHRZmz 8d3GdG9UyyimWh0PQGtLTyfeLmvu8MYEqIEJJUA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vte5+RzcPPX4rZzmsl8ifzOiNNnGp7Z3s1CVUD3mSBGlgm1a9O8xI7a1Po4ia+0IFHymfa97gcCLcXLW9jPUPc=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b78d:: with SMTP id h135mr14777859iof.84.1585659629214; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 06:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200330155304.45AD8F4074B@rfc-editor.org> <CALaySJJ3dAEebgyz==PoSqnhSzFiHcxh0kmynRYBcD6Vjvm+6w@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJK-FNqt-uHOz6oqANj8Xpwt7BOQkO6Ut-iAZ_OY-arO5Q@mail.gmail.com> <8FCCBEAC-F86C-4454-BC8A-3E637539BBEB@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <8FCCBEAC-F86C-4454-BC8A-3E637539BBEB@icann.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:00:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+ZPpj4ixwuzit6RnhX6bG8YzEOYzbMupBL6T3s9QH8gA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>, David Lawrence <tale@dd.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/z7XLVU6shpmrFRk2ILGjgKqrp1k>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8484 (6033)
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:00:31 -0000

Just a process point:

> "held for document update" normally indicates that the erratum is believed to be valid.

Not really.  It is sometimes used when we know the errata report is
valid, such as when it's reporting a typo.  But it's also used when
the errata report does not meet the requirements for "Verified" but
merits discussion if and when the document is updated.  In that sense
it's used to "put a pin in it" for discussion later.  If we should
decide to go this way I would add a note that explains a bit of the
discussion and says that further discussion is needed, along with
rough consensus for any change.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email