On 05/06/17 18:06, Geoff Keating via Public wrote: > Perhaps we should have a general rule that all RFC references mean a > reference to the RFC plus all approved errata?
So the problem, as far as I can see, that RFC errata have 3 possible final states - Verified (i.e. accepted, approved), Rejected, and "Hold for Document Update". Errata which make a breaking change, as this one does, cannot be Verified - it's not allowed. You need to issue a whole new RFC. And I assume PHB doesn't want to do that before he's had the necessary discussions to spec the improved search algorithm. So unless we want _3_ versions of the CAA RFC, we basically need to accept a patch into our standard even though the relevant erratum is not Verified, because it cannot be. So if and when we do think PHB's algorithm tweak is both stably defined and an improvement, then amending the BRs to specifically incorporate the erratum seems like the right fix, because that erratum can not be Verified (which would mean it was automatically incorporated). Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
