Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6840 (4191)

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Samuel Weiler <[email protected]> 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.

I think it is not necessary. We have tools called things like
"dnssec-signzone", not "dnssec-sign_authorative_rrset".
While the amended text is technically correct (which is the best type
if correct), it isn't IMO necessary. But, I don't really care any more
than the effort required to write this mail, so whatever...

W

>
> -- Sam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext