Re: RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]> Wed, 27 May 2009 18:49:03 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.adslmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040171B632@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > Third, I doubt RFC 3278 will ever be changed. The IESG can > amend the "Errata report" with this explanation, perhaps, if > everyone agrees. Mike? Menachem? Moti? > > Hope this helps! > > Regards, > Bob Ray > There are several ways to mark an errata request. Verified - practically meaning accepted as proposed Rejected Held for Document Update In this case a change in semantics cannot be just accepted as proposed, as the accepted method to change semantics of an object is according to the SMI rules by deprecating the old object and defining a new one. We need however to get consensus in the WG on what is the right solution from a technical point of view. Dan