Eliot Lear wrote: > You've decided that it is necessary for there to be a single > primary output. That goes beyond addressing the confusion. QED.
A number of the latest set of posts indicate that some folks haven't read RFCX 4871, and I don't mean "carefully". It almost looks as if they haven't read it at all. Worse, the point that is constantly being ignored was proffered quite clearly in the Errata draft. So it appears they haven't read that document either. The Errata draft cites the text already in RFC 4871 that specifies a single output value. The text is not subtle or hidden. It is explicit and clear. The requirement for specifying a single output is already specified in RFC 4871. However the document failed to define which of the two candidate values is that output. The Errata draft fixes this error, exactly as the Errata draft says it does. Part of the requirement for having a legitimate discussion is that uncomfortable facts and considerations have to be dealt with in one's response. If such data are ignored, then all one is doing is selling, not discussing. That makes the interaction political rather than technical. Jim Fenton wrote: > Dave CROCKER wrote: > 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. Right. So it's probably a good thing that the RFC explicitly calls for a single output value. It means we had wg consensus on the intent ot specify a single output value. That leaves no doubt that the failure to specify one was an error. Errata fix errors. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
