On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:48:17 -0000, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Please reconsider your suggestion.
This Errata effort developed out of real and immediate community need.
Your
opening comment indicates an understanding that the problem does exist.
In
other words, it does fix a specific, actual problem with the current
specification, and that's what Errata are for. If you know of
documentation
that specifies a limit on the scope of an Errata (erratum?), please
point to it,
because I could not find one. We should not invent one on the fly.
This Erratum makes greater changes to the text of the document than is
customarily the case. It is pushing the whole concept or RFC Errata right
up to its limit, and perhaps beyond it.
Nevertheless, it MIGHT be justified in this case on the grounds that this
clarification is required NOW, and a new draft will inevitably take time.
OTOH, it seems that this discussion has established that a new draft is
needed. But when it comes it will undoubtedly include further
clarifications and perhaps extensions or liberalisations (though not such
as to breakl what is already up and running, of course).
Therefore, we really need BOTH; an Erratum NOW, with minimal but agreed
content and a promise that a future draft will not go back on it, and
LATER a new draft, but subject to constraints as to not undoing what is
already agreed and understood.
Coupling the publication fate of this one, specific change with an a
substantially larger -- and potentially much larger -- set of additional
changes
ensures a delay of months, where 6 months is optimistic. Adding
arbitrary delay
to the publication of an approved Errata note is not helpful for
community need.
Exactly.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html