On May 6, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Andrew Chi wrote: > Is this really a technical change? The document has two places that state X, > and one place (citing 5280) that states Y. This erratum replaces the Y > statement with X. All implementers have already implemented X since it's the > stricter form of Y. > > X = no other extensions are allowed > Y = non-critical extensions MAY be ignored > > If this truly is a technical change, then we should have an update doc. But > I'm just trying to minimize needless words.
Andrew, Would an implementer need to know the difference when writing code based on the current standards track RFC, or would they need to read the erratum? -danny _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
