I'm neutral on the errata debate at the moment. However, of the
arguments I've heard, the below is perhaps the MOST bogus:
Creating a -bis document would tend to push things in the wrong
direction; we need more documents that build on the base, not more
stuff in the base document.
Not only does that logic not follow, it ignores precisely what Pasi had
suggested, which was to scope a -bis document to the sorts of changes
for which errata is proposed.
Furthermore, no matter how the errata debate goes, we should do a -bis
if there is working group rough consensus on even one erratum, because
it will make it easier for implementers to look in one place for a
correct specification.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html