On 2/7/2017 10:52 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I suspect that "says something technically wrong" is meant to constrain
things to the specification content, but that's not what the RFC-Editor
definition says, nor is it clear to me that it should be that constrained.
I agree. I think it mostly should, but that there should be judgment involved.
The current error has technical import, since we are talking about a broken
validation.
So, I'm not at all clear that this qualifies as only an 'Editorial' error.
I don't see it that way.
I think there's a difference between an example that includes
So, I think I understand that view, which is why I said "ambiguous".
And the only reason I'm pursuing it, here, is that I think the
determination of an erratum should not be so subjective. I think the
RFC Editor language defining categories should have criteria that are
considerably more crisp.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html