On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:48:17 -0000, Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please reconsider your suggestion. > > This Errata effort developed out of real and immediate community need. > Your > opening comment indicates an understanding that the problem does exist. > In > other words, it does fix a specific, actual problem with the current > specification, and that's what Errata are for. If you know of > documentation > that specifies a limit on the scope of an Errata (erratum?), please > point to it, > because I could not find one. We should not invent one on the fly. This Erratum makes greater changes to the text of the document than is customarily the case. It is pushing the whole concept or RFC Errata right up to its limit, and perhaps beyond it. Nevertheless, it MIGHT be justified in this case on the grounds that this clarification is required NOW, and a new draft will inevitably take time. OTOH, it seems that this discussion has established that a new draft is needed. But when it comes it will undoubtedly include further clarifications and perhaps extensions or liberalisations (though not such as to breakl what is already up and running, of course). Therefore, we really need BOTH; an Erratum NOW, with minimal but agreed content and a promise that a future draft will not go back on it, and LATER a new draft, but subject to constraints as to not undoing what is already agreed and understood. > > Coupling the publication fate of this one, specific change with an a > substantially larger -- and potentially much larger -- set of additional > changes > ensures a delay of months, where 6 months is optimistic. Adding > arbitrary delay > to the publication of an approved Errata note is not helpful for > community need. Exactly. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [email protected] snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
