Thanks Rufus, we even should have a call today at 17:00 CET - call-in details are here (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/F2Ojytj9qoxlE4XSjtMwXMf8oFs/).
Maybe we could also briefly discuss the difference between "X does Y" versus "X MUST do Y" in an RFC, since no-one dared to comment on that yet ;-) Regards Esko -----Original Message----- From: Buschart, Rufus <rufus.busch...@siemens.com> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 22:23 To: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>; Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; priti...@cisco.com; tte+i...@cs.fau.de; michael.h.behrin...@gmail.com; kent+i...@watsen.net; war...@kumari.net; rwil...@cisco.com; t...@cs.fau.de; shengji...@bupt.edu.cn; anima@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) 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 <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> > Sent: Monday, 12 December 2022 21:52 > To: Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> > Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; priti...@cisco.com; > tte+i...@cs.fau.de; michael.h.behrin...@gmail.com; > kent+i...@watsen.net; war...@kumari.net; rwil...@cisco.com; > t...@cs.fau.de; shengji...@bupt.edu.cn; Buschart, Rufus (IT IPS SIP) > <rufus.busch...@siemens.com>; anima@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) > > > Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> 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) <rwil...@cisco.com> 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 <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
