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.
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.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html