An errata is the best way to have this type of change documented. At
least it will be captured for people to consider, and if the document is
ever updated, it will serve as a reminder.
Russ
On 3/13/2010 3:35 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I've come across a RFC which basically says, "in order to do X safely,
perform checks Y before you do X". It turns out that it's possible to
evade those checks. What should I do about it? I've already
contacted the author, and he says that no update to the RFC is
planned. Should i just file an errata? The problem is not really
critical, fortunately.
(The nature of the protocol makes it pretty much impossible to notify
implementers privately.)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf