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

On 14. 07. 26 18:58, Warren Kumari wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 8:25 AM, Petr Špaček <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 25. 06. 26 8:14, [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>         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."
> 
>     Process question.
> 
>     The above basically says:
>     Erratum is not appropriate because WG agreed on something. Even if
>     it has a security vulnerability in it - it is gold plated
>     vulnerability with consensus, don't dare to touch it!
> 
>     At the same time, https://www.ietf.org/process/rfcs/vulnerabilities/
>     <https://www.ietf.org/process/rfcs/vulnerabilities/> suggests
>     erratum might be appropriate response at times.
> 
>     Do we need a new errata state to acknowledge:
>     "The correct text is different than WG agreed to, but the WG
>     consensus turned out to be technically wrong"?
> 
> 
> 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...

Wouldn't 'held for document update' accurately describe situation like this?

I understand why Verified is not an appropriate way to change WG 
consensus, that's all clear. At the same time Rejected because it is 
gold plated bug-in-spec also feels wrong, so the middle ground might fit 
best?

-- 
Petr Špaček

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