[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4035 (8037)
"Eric Vyncke \(evyncke\)" <[email protected]> Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:44:47 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsop,gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <PH0PR11MB4966D235393F823AF7B5C3E6A9B32@PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> |
--===============5257890243123959015== Content-Language: en-GB Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_PH0PR11MB4966D235393F823AF7B5C3E6A9B32PH0PR11MB4966namp_" --_000_PH0PR11MB4966D235393F823AF7B5C3E6A9B32PH0PR11MB4966namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Elias, I will have to read erratum report 8038 (RFC6840) for a definitive answer, = but the IESG statement and my explanations about erratum report 8037 probab= ly apply. Regards -=E9ric From: Elias Heftrig <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 2 August 2024 at 17:29 To: Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@c= isco.com> Cc: Rose, Scott W. (Fed) <[email protected]>, Rob Austein <[email protected]= >, RFC Editor <[email protected]>, Rob Austein <[email protected]>, masse= [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <ek.ietf@gm= ail.com>, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]>, [email protected] <dnsext@ietf.= org>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Schulmann, Haya <haya.schulmann@sit.= fraunhofer.de>, Vogel, Niklas <[email protected]>, Waidner, Mi= chael <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ext] [DNSOP] Re: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4035= (8037) Hi Paul, is the other thread dealing with these errata on dnsop? Mail archive searches for RFC8640 and errata report 8038 were unsuccessful. Would be glad to be pointed to it. @Eric, does your statement on errata report 8037 (RFC4035) also apply to the very similar errata report 8038 (RFC6840), which we filed as well? Best, Elias PS: Added my co-authors from the research team where I am a student from to CC. On 02.08.24 16:32, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Aug 2, 2024, at 06:11, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=3D40cisco.com@dm= arc.ietf.org> wrote: >> As you kindly added me in cc, Iet me chime in (after a couple of PTO d= ays): per the IESG statement on errata processing [1]: >> - as the errata clearly does not represent the DNSEXT WG intent at the p= ublication time, this erratum cannot be =93verified=94 >> - nevertheless, it can be =93held for document update=94 (and I will act= accordingly on Monday if I hear no strong objection) as the IESG statement= includes =93any future update of the document *might* consider it=94 > Ahhh, I had missed that. Earlier, that phrase was meant to indicate that = the errata reviewers assumed the fix *would* be included; I'm glad to see t= hat expectation has been toned down. > > I stand by my statement that the errata process is poorly defined and not= all that well executed, but I fully admit that there is little will to fix= it in the near future. > >> Perhaps time to write an I-D updating RFC 4035 in DNSOP ? > Already done: see RFC 6840. DNSOP has been discussing the topic that caus= ed this errata in another thread, and there are various arguments about whe= ther there is any real value for changing the MUST to a SHOULD given the wo= rding in other standards-track RFCs. > > --Paul Hoffman > --_000_PH0PR11MB4966D235393F823AF7B5C3E6A9B32PH0PR11MB4966namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:sc= hemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/of= fice/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1= 252"> <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Aptos; panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;} span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ligatures:none;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --></style> </head> <body lang=3D"en-BE" link=3D"#467886" vlink=3D"#96607D" style=3D"word-wrap:= break-word"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;mso-f= areast-language:EN-US">Elias,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;mso-f= areast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;mso-f= areast-language:EN-US">I will have to read erratum report 8038 (RFC6840) fo= r a definitive answer, but the IESG statement and my explanations about err= atum report 8037 probably apply.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;mso-f= areast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;mso-f= areast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;mso-f= areast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;mso-f= areast-language:EN-US">-=E9ric<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;mso-f= areast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <div id=3D"mail-editor-reference-message-container"> <div> <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm = 0cm 0cm"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;mar= gin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"> <b><span style=3D"color:black">From: </span></b><span style=3D"color:black"= >Elias Heftrig <[email protected]><br> <b>Date: </b>Friday, 2 August 2024 at 17:29<br> <b>To: </b>Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke (evynck= e) <[email protected]><br> <b>Cc: </b>Rose, Scott W. (Fed) <[email protected]>, Rob Austein &l= t;[email protected]>, RFC Editor <[email protected]>, Rob Aus= tein <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]= du>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, dnsop@ietf= .org <[email protected]>, Schulmann, Haya <[email protected]= fer.de>, Vogel, Niklas <[email protected]>, Waidner, = Michael <[email protected]><br> <b>Subject: </b>Re: [Ext] [DNSOP] Re: [dnsext] [Technical Errata Reported] = RFC4035 (8037)<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-left:36.0pt"><span style=3D"font-siz= e:11.0pt">Hi Paul,<br> <br> is the other thread dealing with these errata on dnsop? Mail archive <br> searches for RFC8640 and errata report 8038 were unsuccessful. Would be <br= > glad to be pointed to it.<br> <br> @Eric, does your statement on errata report 8037 (RFC4035) also apply to <b= r> the very similar errata report 8038 (RFC6840), which we filed as well?<br> <br> Best,<br> <br> Elias<br> <br> PS: Added my co-authors from the research team where I am a student from <b= r> to CC.<br> <br> On 02.08.24 16:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:<br> > On Aug 2, 2024, at 06:11, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=3D40cisco.= [email protected]> wrote:<br> >> As you kindly added me in cc, Iet me chime in (after a= couple of PTO days): per the IESG statement on errata processing [1]:<br> >> - as the errata clearly does not represent the DNSEXT WG intent at= the publication time, this erratum cannot be =93verified=94<br> >> - nevertheless, it can be =93held for document update=94 (and I wi= ll act accordingly on Monday if I hear no strong objection) as the IESG sta= tement includes =93any future update of the document *might* consider it=94= <br> > Ahhh, I had missed that. Earlier, that phrase was meant to indicate th= at the errata reviewers assumed the fix *would* be included; I'm glad to se= e that expectation has been toned down.<br> ><br> > I stand by my statement that the errata process is poorly defined and = not all that well executed, but I fully admit that there is little will to = fix it in the near future.<br> ><br> >> Perhaps time to write an I-D updating RFC 4035 in DNSO= P ?<br> > Already done: see RFC 6840. DNSOP has been discussing the topic that c= aused this errata in another thread, and there are various arguments about = whether there is any real value for changing the MUST to a SHOULD given the= wording in other standards-track RFCs.<br> ><br> > --Paul Hoffman<br> ><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html> --_000_PH0PR11MB4966D235393F823AF7B5C3E6A9B32PH0PR11MB4966namp_-- --===============5257890243123959015== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KRE5TT1AgbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0IC0tIGRuc29wQGlldGYub3JnClRvIHVuc3Vic2NyaWJlIHNlbmQgYW4gZW1haWwg dG8gZG5zb3AtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============5257890243123959015==--