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

On Jul 14, 2026, at 09:58, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personal view only: 
> Yes, errata should not be used to fix change WG consensus after the fact - but what I think would be reasonable in situations like this is to mark the errata as Verified, and change the errata text to something like: 
> "NOTE: This errata is a place holder.  A security issue was discovered which is discussed below. A new document which updates this RFC is being prepared to address this issue, please see draft-foo"
> 
> Yes, this is technically not the right way to use errata, but I think that it falls into "do the right thing" territory. Obviously, confirming with the RFC Ed that this won't make them sad seems like a good idea too...

The technically right way also tells anyone seeing the erratum report exactly what is happening is to mark it as Hold For Document Update. 

--Paul Hoffman

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