Dave CROCKER wrote:
First, thank you for the clarification. I believe I now do understand your
logic and, sadly, I believe your interpretation of the implication of the
"might" is a reasonable.
Unfortunately the simple, practical result of your interpretation and logic
is:
Standards track Errata can only be "approved" if there is no controversy
about
them. Since virtually no IETF activity is entirely without controversy, this
effectively means that your (reasonable) interpretation of Rule #7 means that
virtually no standards track Errata can get the "Approved" label.
In this particular case, there was no controversy for any of the errata
*except* what you've proposed.
And I hope my language makes clear that I think this describes a very large
problem with the rule
An easier explanation is that the scope and breadth semantic changes are
the problem. Occam's Razor and all that.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html