Subject: Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 08:10:02 -0800

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:37 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are two errata reports against RFC 7484, both in status
> "reported"
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7484&rec_status=15).
> Part of the requirements for advancing a document to Internet Standard
> is to address all errata reports against the original document.  On a
> superficial reading of the diff from RFC 7484 to this document it does
> appear that changes are included that would address these two errata
> reports, but that should probably be acknowledged in the text, and the
> responsible AD should use the RFC Editor's errata tool to process the
> reports accordingly.
>

The errata have been marked as "Verified".

-MSK

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 08:11:56 -0800

> The errata have been marked as "Verified".

Thanks!  I saw the email for that and updated my ballot position during the
telechat.

-Ben