I'm neutral on the errata debate at the moment. However, of the arguments I've heard, the below is perhaps the MOST bogus:
> Creating a -bis document would tend to push things in the wrong > direction; we need more documents that build on the base, not more > stuff in the base document. Not only does that logic not follow, it ignores precisely what Pasi had suggested, which was to scope a -bis document to the sorts of changes for which errata is proposed. Furthermore, no matter how the errata debate goes, we should do a -bis if there is working group rough consensus on even one erratum, because it will make it easier for implementers to look in one place for a correct specification. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
