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

Hi -

Do we need the concept of a Defect Report that is different than an errata?

Mike


On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 13:34 Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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]
>

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