Hi Murray,
At 22:03 07-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
That's a reasonable suggestion, but I think the important thing is
to change the registry than to update RFC5451 itself. If there are
any sites that actually used the wrong value found in the original
document, they may continue to do so and the definition for it needs
to be in effect someplace.
Ok.
There's a separate erratum against the example as well, but that's
less of a bug than a registry inconsistency. We can fix the example
whenever we feel like advancing a proper RFC5451bis.
Agreed.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't object to acknowledging in this draft that
the example you cited also has the same error. Would that suffice?
Yes.
Off-topic note, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6434
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf