Stephen Farrell wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
In any case, I'd like to understand the process by which a substantial
change in semantics is allowed under the rubric of "errata".
I also believe "substantial change" is not allowed and wouldn't
get the ok from our AD to use the RFC editor's errata process.
However, at this point we're still trying to establish whether
we have rough consensus in the WG as to the change we want to
make.
The thing is that the _rest_ of the errata is wholly uncontroversial,
and is largely the result of interoperability testing and experience.
Trying to roll in Dave's erratum is what is causing friction, and
frankly adds to confusion instead of reducing it.
Whether that can be processed as an erratum is another day's work
(regardless of the file name of the I-D). It is the case that a
few people have commented that this change might not fit the
errata process whereas others clearly think that its ok to proceed
with it as an erratum. We'll find out which opinion is correct in
the end, but for now, I at least don't claim to know.
Wouldn't it be better to know whether something falls into the category
_first_? At this point in the WG life cycle, there are not very many people
paying attention. I suspect that a lot of the votes to move forward is to
just correct the uncontroversial stuff. Why can't we just separate those
two instead of bundling them?
Mike
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html