Subject: [dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:19:10 +1100

4033, 4034 and 4035 all list 3007 as being updated by them.

I see no evidence that any of 4033, 4034 and 4035 actually update
3007.

I believe a erratra should be filed.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE:	+61 2 9871 4742		         INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 08:40:12 -0500

Consult this for instructions:  http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Vote for the word of the day:
"Papa"razzi - father that constantly takes photos of the baby
Corpureaucracy - The institution of corporate "red tape"

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:55:18 +0000

Hi Ed, folks,
 C'mon. Play nice.

This question is why I'm happy that the Namedroppers list is continuing.

I trust that others who might want to raise errata can find this list to
 sanity check concerns **before** errata are raised.

Can't help saying that the potentially inconsistent state of the RFCs is
something that the WG should have fixed, and is a challenge [As you know :]p
Speaking as an outsider, Mark's question seems reasonable to me.

No -- that doesn't need a WG, but Namedroppers IS a public pool of clueful
 (if grumpy) people with DNS clue.

all the best,
  Lawrence

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:53:16 -0500

Dear colleagues,

> This question is why I'm happy that the Namedroppers list is continuing.

With my list-moderator hat on, I want to note that this list is not
the namedroppers list.  The namedroppers list was a list that was
operated on ops.ietf.org, which had (and according to a query I just
issued, still has) as its MX a machine in psg.com.  Some of you may
remember that we attempted to move that list onto the ietf.org
infrastructure, and were not able to do so.  This was partly because
one of the people behind the operation of the list in its old home
were opposed to such a move and were unwilling to co-operate in it.
Both of your moderators lost access to administrative operations on
that list during that period.

Accordingly, the list supporting DNSEXT was changed.  I do not know
the status of the (old) namedroppers list, although I note that the
former archives seem not to work and that the last time I tried to
send mail to the former address the mail apparently disappeared.

I just want to ensure, for the record, that this is clear, since the
current controllers of namedroppers seemed to feel quite strongly that
the control of that list should remain with them.  The DNSEXT list
moderators have no idea whether the namedroppers list is continuing.

Best regards,
A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:26:46 -0800

Hi Mark,
>I see no evidence that any of 4033, 4034 and 4035 actually update

There isn't any mention of what parts of RFC 3007 are updated by those RFCs.

>I believe a erratra should be filed.

See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/rfc-metadata-errata.html

Regards,
-sm