Thanks Rufus, we even should have a call today at 17:00 CET - call-in details
are here
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/F2Ojytj9qoxlE4XSjtMwXMf8oFs/).
Maybe we could also briefly discuss the difference between "X does Y" versus "X
MUST do Y" in an RFC, since no-one dared to comment
Hello all!
Thank you for working so intensively on my errata. I was invited by one of
Siemens's representatives in the ANIMA WG to join your call next week. I hope
I'll be able to make it and would be very happy to work with you on my proposed
errata.
And btw: I would love to have MUSTs in
Esko Dijk wrote:
> The worry I have here is that by the time we get to the document update
> people may not be around anymore to remember why the 'SHOULD' ought to
> be a 'MUST' and then the wrong change will be made.
okay.
Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> If the errata is "Hold
If the errata is "Hold for Doc Update" then the RFC editor won't automatically
apply the diff. I'm pretty sure that is only ever done for verified errata.
There are also notes that can go along with the errata to give further
information (e.g., what the proposed long-term resolution is) if
> Yes, it SHOULD be, "SHOULD be"
And I was saying it MUST be, "MUST be".
The worry I have here is that by the time we get to the document update people
may not be around anymore to remember why the 'SHOULD' ought to be a 'MUST' and
then the wrong change will be made.
So better fix the erratum
