Hello all! Thank you for working so intensively on my errata. I was invited by one of Siemens's representatives in the ANIMA WG to join your call next week. I hope I'll be able to make it and would be very happy to work with you on my proposed errata.
And btw: I would love to have MUSTs in both paragraphs but didn't dare to propose this 😉 /Rufus > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, 12 December 2022 21:52 > To: Esko Dijk <[email protected]> > Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Buschart, Rufus (IT IPS SIP) > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) > > > Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > > The worry I have here is that by the time we get to the document update > > people may not be around anymore to remember why the 'SHOULD' > ought to > > be a 'MUST' and then the wrong change will be made. > > okay. > > Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: > > If the errata is "Hold for Doc Update" then the RFC editor won't > > automatically apply the diff. I'm pretty sure that is only ever done > > for verified errata. > > so, let's mark it this way for now. > > > There are also notes that can go along with the errata to give further > > information (e.g., what the proposed long-term resolution is) if that > > is helpful. > > If have consensus for the next text, then I think the RFC-editor site can do > the patch process, though, when we mark it as verified. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
