> (a) The erratum I-D [1] is ready to go. Process it. > (b) The erratum I-D [1] is the way to go, but needs work. > (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.) > (c) Eliot's proposal [2] is ready to go. Process it. > (d) Eliot's proposal [2] is the way to go, but needs work. > (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.) > (e) None of the above.
My vote goes to (a): process this erratum. I'm afraid to say that I feel the discussion is starting to go in circles and the more time is spent discussing what has already been discussed and agreed, the more people start joining in the process and the more they become confused and start splitting hair. Eliot's proposal, whilst a very good effort, might introduce doubt in the reader's mind, especially the sentence: "Implementations should not rely on the presence of this value or its stability" - no stability = unstable = not good - or at least, that's what I think some readers will think. Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
