Re: FW: issues with RFC 4319

Hi -

>From: Clay Sikes <[email protected]>
>Sent: Jan 22, 2006 12:37 AM
...
>Subject: Re: FW: issues with RFC 4319
...
>I don't see the problems as being significant enough to require an Errata Note
>because I don't see any of them as causing a hard outage in implementation.
>I'm not sure what drives an Errata Note,
>but it would seem that it would be driven by an error
>that causes an implementation issue 
>and not just a usability or readability improvement.
...

As far as I know, there is no minimum "severity" requirement for errata.
Obviously, errors that affect interoperability more urgently demand correction.
I'd have no objection to putting the corrections (e.g., mis-spelled or
truncated object descriptors appearing in DESCRIPTIONs) in a note,
since they'd help others avoid some head-scratching when reading the RFC.

It's good to get such detailed feedback, and Alfred should be commended
for taking the time to send in his thoughtful comments.

Randy