ta System
><rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
>Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Errata Verified] RFC7666 (4710)
>
>He? The fix aligns the textual description with the actual definition.
>What is your proposal? Keep them inconsistent? I am puzzled now as
>well.
Ah. Never mind. :-)
Rand
Right, we didn't change the IANA assignment, but the TC description.
Regards, B.
He? The fix aligns the textual description with the actual definition.
What is your proposal? Keep them inconsistent? I am puzzled now as
well.
/js
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 07:15:03PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote:
He? The fix aligns the textual description with the actual definition.
What is your proposal? Keep them inconsistent? I am puzzled now as
well.
/js
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 07:15:03PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I am puzzled that this change was permitted.
> It seems to be in clear
Hi -
I am puzzled that this change was permitted.
It seems to be in clear violation of the
constraints imposed by RFC 2579 section 5.
Once the textual convention has been published,
such a change, even if it is a "fix", is not
allowed by the interoperability rules.
Randy
-Original
