Re: [VCARDDAV] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6350 (4213)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> 1) What should the current spec say to make clear its current meaning given
> that errata are not permitted to change its meaning? and
...
> #1 is my real concern for purposes of the errata
...
> I am unfamiliar with this group's process. When I worked with
> interpretations for IEEE PASC, there was a basic form response to the effect
> of, "The spec says what it says, but what it says currently makes no sense
> (for this case), therefore implementations shall not depend upon that
> combination. The underlying question will be resolved in a future version."
> I imagine you have a similar way of wording that? That is more or less what
> I was expecting to get back.

Well, we do have something of that nature: I can mark the errata
report "Rejected", which means either that it's wrong or that it's
outside the scope of the errata system, or I can mark it "Held for
Document Update" (HFDU), which means that it's a reasonable errata
report, but the resolution needs to be left for a future document
revision.

I do have some latitude here, and, while I see this as a "Rejected"
case (on the "out of scope" grounds), your point that it's hard (or
impossible) to build an implementation of this feature that reliably
interoperates... makes me inclined to use the latitude and go with
"HFDU" instead.

So that's what I intend to do, unless someone screams in the next
couple of days.

Barry