Dave CROCKER wrote: > You cite some issues that I would be interested is seeing you expand a bit: > > SM wrote: > >> An errata is generally noncontroversial. >> > > First, you say "generally" which means that an errata is not disqualified by > being controversial. Further, I've never heard of any requirement for being > non-requirement. My own experience with errata is pretty small, but I've > seen > them range from silly to obvious. >
The IESG statement on RFC errata at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt says, in part: > 7. Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that > might be different from the intended consensus when the document > was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or > Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment. That "might" in the statement sets a high bar that an erratum should be approved only if it is clear that it doesn't change the intended consensus. When an erratum is controversial doesn't necessarily mean that it differs from the intended consensus when the document was approved, but definitely needs to be considered by whomever (Pasi?) is the approving authority. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
