I've spoken with both John and Pete in the past about updating 2821 and 2822.
They've both been maintaining errata lists and agreed with me at that time that
new versions of 2821/2822 should eventually be released. Pete felt that 2822bis
would be ready to move to draft standard, but John felt that 2821bis would have
too many needed changes to let it move to draft standard at this time.
When this topic last came up about a year ago, there were mixed feelings about
starting up any DRUMS2 group.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll get any work done in time for using 3821 and
3822 as the numbers. Can we do it in time for 4821/4822? :-)
Tony
Russ Allbery wrote:
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Once you have a list of errata, I don't understand why you think it's much
work at all to actually apply them to the document. Producing the list of
errata is all the work.
obviously this depends on how many things need to be changed. but I
recommend to start working on a list of errata.
I agree. Starting with a list of errata is the right approach. I just
don't want to see it published solely that way.