Eliot Lear wrote:
You've decided that it is necessary for there to be a single
primary output. That goes beyond addressing the confusion. QED.
A number of the latest set of posts indicate that some folks haven't read RFCX
4871, and I don't mean "carefully". It almost looks as if they haven't read it
at all. Worse, the point that is constantly being ignored was proffered quite
clearly in the Errata draft. So it appears they haven't read that document
either.
The Errata draft cites the text already in RFC 4871 that specifies a single
output value. The text is not subtle or hidden. It is explicit and clear.
The requirement for specifying a single output is already specified in RFC
4871.
However the document failed to define which of the two candidate values is
that output. The Errata draft fixes this error, exactly as the Errata draft
says it does.
Part of the requirement for having a legitimate discussion is that
uncomfortable
facts and considerations have to be dealt with in one's response. If such data
are ignored, then all one is doing is selling, not discussing. That makes the
interaction political rather than technical.
Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> The IESG statement on RFC errata at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt says,
in part:
7. 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. Deciding between these two depends on judgment.
That "might" in the statement sets a high bar that an erratum should be
approved only if it is clear that it doesn't change the intended
consensus. When an erratum is controversial doesn't necessarily mean
that it differs from the intended consensus when the document was
approved, but definitely needs to be considered by whomever (Pasi?) is
the approving authority.
Right.
So it's probably a good thing that the RFC explicitly calls for a single output
value. It means we had wg consensus on the intent ot specify a single output
value.
That leaves no doubt that the failure to specify one was an error.
Errata fix errors.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html