IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 17 April 2008 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021DF3A6DB4; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7343A6B3F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zSpNqFNiyLSP for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from woodstock.binhost.com (woodstock.binhost.com [8.8.40.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DA38028C200 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29018 invoked by uid 0); 17 Apr 2008 20:00:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (72.83.129.167) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2008 20:00:35 -0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:38 -0400
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0804170856150.9808@netcore.fi>
References: <20080416151659.F075C3A6C0B@core3.amsl.com> <alpine.LRH.1.10.0804170856150.9808@netcore.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20080417200002.DA38028C200@core3.amsl.com>
Cc: iab@iab.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

>One of the guidelines says:
>
> >   8.  Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing
> >       an IANA registration procedure, to something that might be
> >       different from the intended consensus when the document was
> >       approved should be Archived.
>
>I do not understand an errata that suggests changing the defined
>process should be Archived.  Shouldn't this be flat out Rejected?

The intent was for the proposed change (submitted as an errata) to be 
considered if the document ever gets revised.

Russ

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email