Stephen Farrell wrote:
(There is an open question as to whether
the erratum I-D fits the RFC editor's erratum model or not,
It does fit, and the timeframe for Errata works much better for the market need
for the correction, than does the timeframe of a revised RFC.
(a) The erratum I-D [1] is ready to go. Process it.
a), please.
For example, Eliot's draft does not attend to the basic requirement for
specifying what is primary output. (Or, for that matter, distinguishing output
from protocol internals.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html