Daniel McCarney

> RFC 3596 does seem to suggest this should be considered a malformed SAN. I do think it might be helpful to add referenced to RFC 3596 and BCP49 in...

> Given that @mtgag has mostly trailed off contributing, how do you feel about removing the ETSI lints entirely, and closing out the related items? Strong +1.

@sandorszoke Thank you for the detailed description! :bow: Minor note: In the future I think we would prefer if you can keep to one problem per issue instead of describing...

> It also doesn't look like the branch gets deleted automatically as specified in the conf. I deleted manually. Reading the docs more it sounds like this is the intended...

> We should investigate the workarounds to get this working properly. In the meantime it should be relatively safe to merge the bot PR's administratively skipping the CI checks. If...

It occurs to me that maybe we can sidestep most of this concern by just adding a build & unit test step to the PR workflow itself. Not quite the...

> It occurs to me that maybe we can sidestep most of this concern by just adding a build & unit test step to the PR workflow itself. This seemed...

I updated my [earlier comment](https://github.com/zmap/zlint/issues/515#issuecomment-743777429). Working through how I'm going to handle similar automation for publicsuffix/list I realized we could have the bot open PRs from a fork as a...

:wave: @cardonator Interested in your thoughts on this case too

> I started leaning towards marking this as a warning instead too, and I still stand by that opinion. Please tell me what you think. Thanks @ZsofiaTomicsko, I think your...