[DNSOP] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8945 (9014 )

On 25 Jun 2026, at 08:16, [email protected] wrote:

> Without digging into the technical merits of OLD vs NEW, the text you flagged reflects the intended behavior as further confirmed in Section 10:
> 
>   Section 5.4 recommends logging these as
>   errors and continuing to wait for a signed response until the request
>   times out.
> 
> I don't think filling an errata is appropriate here. This errata falls under the following case [1]:
> 
> "Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that might be different from the intended consensus when the document was approved should generally be Rejected. Significant clarifications should not be handled as errata reports and need to be discussed by the relevant technical community."
> 
> My current take is to reject it.

That logic seems reasonable. But the change that Ondrej suggested also seems reasonable. So we wrote some words while I was waiting for a train. This is a short draft that updates 8945 to reflect the suggested change.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sury-dnsop-tsig-clarify/


Joe

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]