--On Thursday, December 08, 2011 14:02 -0500 Thomas Narten
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226&eid=2715
...
I don't see the need for this. "should" seems good enough for
me. Also, the wording "any ranges that are ... etc." implies
to me that the list provided are examples and if a category
doesn't apply, you don't include it.
In other words, I don't see a problem with the existing text
that warrants bothering with an errata.
But maybe I'm missing what the problem is.
Agreed, and let me go a half-step further. This sort of
suggested change would be relevant iff 5226 were a rigid,
normative, spec from which people needed to select an enumerated
option and use it without variation. While people sometimes
confuse it with such a spec, it isn't, has never been, and we
would be, IMO, doing ourselves a serious disservice by turning
it into one. As long as that is the case, the level of
precision tuning implied by the proposed erratum isn't so much
wrong as it is irrelevant.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf