Dave CROCKER wrote: > 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 text you cite specifies a single purpose. It says nothing about there being a single output value. There is considerable text in the erratum trying to draw the inference that single purpose => single output value. But if it were that explicit and clear, this text would not be needed. The phrase "single output value" appears nowhere in RFC 4871. > > 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. > The controversy I was referring to is not limited to the issue of specifying a single output value. In the context of the ADSP draft, you have said that text in the draft (which has been through WG and IETF last call) doesn't necessarily mean that there was WG consensus, unless there had also been substantial mailing list discussion on the topic. Now you're saying that text in the document is evidence of WG consensus. You can't have it both ways. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
