Subject: Re: [dnsext] errata 4034 - 5011

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:24:29 +0100 (MEZ)

Folks,
according to past experience, it does not even need a formal
Errata Note to have the RFC Editor update the RFC metadata
with a relation   "RFC 5011 updates RFC 4034" .

However, IMO it would be much more important to add the relation
"RFC 5011 updates RFC 4035" , because the path to find the
definition of the REVOKED bit is paived by the IANA registry
for these bits based on RFC 4034, whereas the significant change
in resolver behavior for the proper treatment of that bit affects
the processing rules in RFC 4035.

I guess, an email to the RFC-Ed from the chairs, perhaps with an
approval from the responsible AD, should suffice in this case.

Nevertheless, to better document the issue, I recomment that some
involved party (perhaps Matthijs, RFC 5011 author Mike StJohns ?)
file a Technical RFC Errata Note at the RFC Editor web site.
The rationale noted there should state that the 'Revoked' bit
modifies the on-the-wire format (RFC 4034) and the protocol
processing in validating resolvers (RFC 4035).

( For those not acquainted with the procedure:
  In that case, an avalanche of mails will be triggered; the RFC
  author and the WG chairs should comment/approve the Erratum,
  and the resp. AD eventually will validate the Erratum and
  sign it off for the IESG. )

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:58:22 -0500

>processing in validating resolvers (RFC 4035).

No - it does not.  Assigning a value to a bit is not changing the on-the-wire format.  4034 says specifically to ignore unknown bits in the flag field  If you're compliant with 4034 and not 5011 that's the correct action.  If you're compliant with 5011, THEN you modify the processing.
.

Mike