Robert Wilton writes: >> But I don't think it can be done in an errata. >Does this just leave the behaviour as undefined then? I.e. it is up to >the implementation to decide whether they error the augmentation.
Which is an unacceptable outcome. Errata are an acceptable means of addressing this. We are not fixing a protocol design error, but repairing a missing scenario. A savvy implementer of the specification can often, but not always, figure out what was intended by the RFC as published, but technical errors should be announced somehow. In this case, the spec says nothing about an odd but interesting scenario. I don't think this requires a new version of the protocol, just a clarification. Thanks, Phil _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
