12.09.2011 18:34, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/29/11 3:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
After staring at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 for
long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended to
obsolete RFC 2119. I hope that I've been able to update and clarify the
text in a way that is respectful of the original. Feedback is welcome.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-2119bis-01.txt
Based on the feedback received, I do not plan to pursue further work on
that Internet-Draft. However, given that the IETF Secretariat and the
RFC Editor team already accept documents that include "NOT RECOMMENDED"
in the RFC 2119 boilerplate, does anyone see harm in verifying the
aforementioned erratum?
In strict accordance with
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html> this erratum
should be Held for Document Update:
5. Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to
implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update.
6. Changes which are simply stylistic issues or simply make things
read better should be Hold for Document Update.
However, as far as the corrected boilerplate is widely used, I think
there is no harm in marking it as Verified.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Peter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf