On 6/4/18 5:39 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
The document write-up describes the process that has been used with SCTP
updates, and this document follows this plan - this is information to
help the WG prepare a bis document, that we plan to populate with these
edits to the spec and adopt as a WG item in Montreal.
In that case, do you actually intend for this document to progress to an
informational RFC, or just leave it as a draft and let it expire once
the bis has captured all it contains?
(My understanding is that there is now a preference not to waste
resources publishing transient documents like this.)
Q3: While the draft name contains “-errata-“, it is unclear whether the
draft only covers issues for which erratas has been filed, or whether
other issues (e.g., issues that have been discussed on the list) are
also
included.
There are other issues discussed on the list, and the text proposed here
is what the WG has discussed and finally agreed upon to appear in the
.bis document. It would be OK to add something about that.
So is this really just a capture of agreements the wg has made about
planned changes to 4960, where many of them have been motivated by errata?
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
