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

On 25. 06. 26 17:59, Joe Abley wrote:
> 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/ 

Simple and to the point. Ship it, if erratum cannot do it.

-- 
Petr Špaček

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