Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933)

[[e-mail]]

>>> On 3 Mar 2020, at 22:43, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I didn't know what we meant to say, because I never thought for one
>>> moment how the text applied to routing headers, where the destination
>>> address essentially becomes a variable instead of a constant, and where
>>> the Segments Left field is mutable by construction. So it isn't a "flea";
>>> IMHO it's a major omission. (I feel a bit guilty, because we first missed
>>> it in RFC7045.)
>> You should not feel guilty.
>> Isn’t the IETF mantra to write specifications to ensure interoperability. The goal isn’t to write enough legalese to prohibit future uses (or abuses) of the specifications. 
> 
> Isn't there a procedure to update existing specs, when needed?  -- that's what some of us have been arguing about...

I have indeed seen that argument repeated over the last few hundred messages.
Yes, there is a procedure.
No, I am not convinced that RFC8200 requires any change.

Best regards,
Ole