Re: [sidr] [Errata Rejected] RFC6487 (3168)

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 12/05/2013 03:33, Danny McPherson wrote:
> On May 6, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Andrew Chi wrote:
>
>> Is this really a technical change?  The document has two places that state X, and one place (citing 5280) that states Y.  This erratum replaces the Y statement with X.  All implementers have already implemented X since it's the stricter form of Y.
>>
>> X = no other extensions are allowed
>> Y = non-critical extensions MAY be ignored
>>
>> If this truly is a technical change, then we should have an update doc.  But I'm just trying to minimize needless words.
> Andrew,
> Would an implementer need to know the difference when writing code based on the current standards track RFC, or would they need to read the erratum?
>
> -danny
>
That is indeed the key question. Errata (only) document obvious mistakes 
in the original text, and are rarely read by implementers since few know 
of there existence.  By contrast an update will be flagged to them in 
the metadata. In this case my assessment was that the matter was 
technical and outside the scope of an errata a view I confirmed with 
others on the IESG.

The update does not need to be a big document, but it will (if 
published) have WG and IETF consensus for the change it makes.

- Stewart