I think we can submit that text as a clarification to the existing
Vacation RFC, through the errata process.
We can try, but if recent experiences by others are any indication, this is
unlikely to be accepted as an erratum because it's making a new
recommendation, not correcting an error. There is increasing concern that
the errata process is being used to bypass proper standards review.
I think this is a reasonable change to make, but I'd rather make it in a
revision, not an errata.
Submitting an errata report doesn't necessarily result in "accepted";
it could end up as "defer to next revision". But it means that the
erratum is tracked along with the RFC, and when we do come up to doing
a revision, it's right there to remind us.
WFM.
Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve