Dave CROCKER wrote:
> First, thank you for the clarification. I believe I now do understand your
> logic and, sadly, I believe your interpretation of the implication of the
> "might" is a reasonable.
>
> Unfortunately the simple, practical result of your interpretation and logic
> is:
> Standards track Errata can only be "approved" if there is no controversy
> about
> them. Since virtually no IETF activity is entirely without controversy, this
> effectively means that your (reasonable) interpretation of Rule #7 means that
> virtually no standards track Errata can get the "Approved" label.
In this particular case, there was no controversy for any of the errata
*except* what you've proposed.
> And I hope my language makes clear that I think this describes a very large
> problem with the rule
An easier explanation is that the scope and breadth semantic changes are
the problem. Occam's Razor and all that.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
