There are no new concepts introduced in this errata, just giving some
names (and four letter acronyms) to existing concepts so they can be
referenced easily later on. This set of errata could be written without
introducing those names or four letter acronyms. But adding the names
and FLAs seemed to make the text shorter and more to the point.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Separately, is the best route from here to do a 4871bis
(assuming the 5378 mess gets sorted), that incorporates
all agreed errata to date? If not, then what?
The intent for this effort was to issue it as an Errata entry, per
The changes are narrow and few. We really don't need to generate a brand new
RFC just for this. Or at least, not yet, IMO.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to