Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:10 AM +0000 3/8/07, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Say if you had to write an erratum explaining this, rather than
fixing it...what'd you say?
An erratum sounds like a fix.
No. It seems like this isn't a trivial thing to fix, so such
a change shouldn't be attempted in AUTH48. ('Course that hasn't
stopped people before;-)
> Instead, I hope you mean "an explanation
of what is in the spec, even if it wasn't what we wanted".
And (assuming such a note is useful) would it make sense to
add that to the RFC?
That can be added to the RFC, if done carefully. It would be even better
if it was done and agreed to on the WG mailing list, so that the
responsible AD can tell the RFC Editor "this has already been agreed to
by the WG" and let the RFC Editor decide whether or not it is editorial
or a technical change.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to