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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf