On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:07:25PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: > sentence, about something that is formally provable implied by what > is already there
If it is formally provably implied in the document, then there is no reason for an erratum anyway. > , is a complete and thorough misunderstanding of the > IETF process and the Proposed Standard document maturity level. I disagree. I think that PS is PS precisely _because_ this sort of problem might be in them, and that the process of updating documents is how we advance them. We do not track all the things that ought to be added to a document during update in errata, and I don't believe we should start now. I agree with you that your proposal is an advisable update. I just don't think it's an erratum. > It irritates me to see such a statement from folks that I consider > part of the IETF leadership. For the record, I'm not responding with any hat on. I'm not the boss of this anyway, either. Also, as anyone who has ever read anything I've written or heard anything I said knows, the idea that a dot of any colour on my badge indicates any special kind of wisdom or knowledge is not backed up by the evidence. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
