As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226&eid=2715
In it Julian suggests (wdiff shows the proposed text changes):
5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions
[-should-] {+SHALL+} be provided to identify any initial
assignments or registrations. In addition, any ranges that
are {+"Unassigned" (only for those registries that have a
bounded size),+} to be [-reserved-] {+"Reserved", used+} for
"Private Use", [-"Reserved", "Unassigned",-]
{+"Experimentation",+} etc. [-should-] {+SHALL+} be clearly
indicated.
I don't see the need for this. "should" seems good enough for
me. Also, the wording "any ranges that are ... etc." implies to me
that the list provided are examples and if a category doesn't apply,
you don't include it.
In other words, I don't see a problem with the existing text that
warrants bothering with an errata.
But maybe I'm missing what the problem is.
Russ Housley <[email protected]> writes:
> Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, "Guidelines for Writing an
> IANA Considerations Section in RFCs". After discussion with one of
> the RFC authors and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
> The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are no
> "unreserved" values. For registries where there are a finite number
> of entries possible, the "unreserved" has a clear meaning. For
> registries with an unbounded number of potential entries (such as
> media-types), the errata author is claiming that the "unreserved"
> label does not make sense.
> I'd like to know what others think about this errata.
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
