The following errata was filed, but this is beyond the scope
of an errata system to address.
I think that the right process is for the WG to decide the answer
and if necessary for someone to write up a short update to
RFC5291
I will close the errata with a pointer to this thread in the
SIDR
IDR not S-IDR ? (or I missed the tie-in to S-IDR...)
On 02/06/2013 01:47 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
The following errata was filed, but this is beyond the scope
of an errata system to address.
I think that the right process is for the WG to decide the answer
and if necessary for someone to
I beg your pardon - I missed the S in the WG column.
Moving it over there
Stewart
On 06/02/2013 18:50, Chris Morrow wrote:
IDR not S-IDR ? (or I missed the tie-in to S-IDR...)
On 02/06/2013 01:47 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
The following errata was filed, but this is beyond the scope
of an
On 02/06/2013 01:52 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
I beg your pardon - I missed the S in the WG column.
Moving it over there
awesome, thanks! :) it does look like something IDR should poke at though.
Stewart
On 06/02/2013 18:50, Chris Morrow wrote:
IDR not S-IDR ? (or I missed the tie-in
