Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6840 (4191)

 Warren Kumari writes:

 > 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...

The DNS RFC are already plagued with a lot of fuzzy wordings leading
to confusion by non DNS experts.  Therefore it will be good to be
have this errata.

	jaap

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