Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Howdy.
A new version of the Errata draft has been submitted.
I see this as a small improvement over the original, but still have
significant problems with aspects of it that I detailed in my comments
about -00.
The big issue is whether this meets the requirements for an IETF
erratum. It is very large; I don't know whether an erratum has ever
been processed of this size before. But my bigger concern is this
sentence from the IESG statement on RFC errata (
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt ):
Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
might be different from the intended consensus when the document
was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or
Rejected.
Your message of February 2 says,
Since the new consensus appears to be that i= has semantics that are entirely
undefined,
"New consensus" indicates that this might be different from the intended
consensus when the document was approved.
We really need to get this sorted out: whether this qualifies as an
erratum, or whether this discussion should be taking place in the
context of a wider discussion about 4871bis.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html