On 6/1/2019 5:38 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
My understanding matched Dave's originally, but then I found this:
https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-processing-rfc-errata-ietf-stream/
Interesting. I've never seen that before. I suspect few others have.
I was educated on the model I described by having a design change -- I
don't remember whether it fixed a design error or added an enhancement
-- refused for the errata record and I was told errata were only for
documentation errors -- that is for cases in which the document did not
adequately described "what was intended". So, anything that alters what
was intended by the wg and/or authors was declared out of scope.
While this was some years ago, I'm quite sure it was long after the date
of the IESG document.
FWIW, it strikes me as a little crazy to have errata admittance rules be
different for different streams. What is the possible benefit that is
major enough to warrant the additional complexity? But that's just me.
Taking the current case, while it's nice that Alexey is friendly to
adding this item as a hold, I'll suggest that the decision should rest
with the troops already tasked with assessing the submission. There
doesn't seem to be a good reason to require an AD to make that decision.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
