At 11:41 AM -0400 5/26/14, John C Klensin wrote:
--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
WFM.
(and I think that is the first time I've ever used that acronym.)
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Rocky's Lemma of Innovation Prevention:
Unless the results are known in advance, funding agencies will
reject the proposal.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
