Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this time

["Bradner, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:

> Ruediger,
> 
> [Scott, a question for you at the end]
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer your erratum suggestion because it flags the problem in the doc that now needs clarifying, so it's more likely to be noticed by people reading the deprecated text. But we'll have to see whether this would be accepted as an erratum. The relevant rule is #7 here:
> <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html>
> 
> "Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that might be different from the intended consensus when the document was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment. Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus, or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update. "
> 
> If we wrote an erratum to RFC5559, it would be legitimate, because the para you have quoted has two contradictory statements in it anyway. I doubt an erratum can refer to an RFC published later (3-in-1), because errata are meant to correct what the document should have said at the time. I think we could compose an erratum that resolved the contradiction in that paragraph while at the same time making it "not inconsistent" with what we now want to say in 3-in-1.
> 
> Scott, can you advise?

that sounds logical

Scott