--On Monday, May 26, 2014 11:06 -0400 Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Consider the work to add the clarifications as a down payment >>> on the work of any eventual revision, or insurance that a >>> revision will be done without forgetting this discussion now. >>> Or, if it's worth publishing the errata, it's worth noting >>> that it isn't quite right. >> >> Wfm, noting however that, in my role as keeper of the XML with >> comments, etc., I've already marked this change --with a note >> that the text isn't quite right-- into the source that would >> be used to build 6409bis if Randy and I were to do it. My >> previous note was written with that in mind. > > OK... then please agree on an exact wording change to the > errata report, and I will get the change made. If Randy has strong preferences to the contrary and wants to take the lead to sort out wording, I'll defer to him. But my preference right now, based on avoidance of pointless work, would just be to add a sentence to what is in the erratum already that says "the above wording is not quite correct and needs to be examined carefully before a revised version is inserted into a revised document" ... or something to that effect - exact wording doesn't make any difference. In other words, I recommend flagging this rather than trying to develop supposedly-final text that would just need another pass if/when the document is revised. If we were proposing posting a revision now and processing it, my attitude would be somewhat different. john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
