I am picking up some of the backlog on the Errata. Rob suggested two options. I am inclined to go with his first option. Does anyone have any objection or would prefer the second option? If I do not hear in the next two weeks, I am going to go with the first option.
Thanks. > On Jan 17, 2024, at 8:39 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: >> Okay, I can add a clarification to the errata to indicate that RFC 2119 >> language is not required for the text to still be normative, and if >> this text is updated, the other sections should be updated in a >> consistent fashion. > > If you like. > I don't have a strong opinion. Probably we should have used BCP14 language > there. > >> An alternative resolution here is for me to reject the errata, >> indicating that the text is still a normative requirement even though >> it doesn’t use RFC 2119 language. Specifically, I don’t think that the >> existing text is wrong, but consistently using RFC 2119 keywords may >> add clarity. > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
