Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995)

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 11:41 AM -0400 5/26/14, John C Klensin wrote:

>  --On Monday, May 26, 2014 11:06 -0400 Barry Leiba
>  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>>>  Consider the work to add the clarifications as a down payment
>>>>  on the work of any eventual revision, or insurance that a
>>>>  revision will be done without forgetting this discussion now.
>>>>  Or, if it's worth publishing the errata, it's worth noting
>>>>  that it isn't quite right.
>>>
>>>  Wfm, noting however that, in my role as keeper of the XML with
>>>  comments, etc., I've already marked this change --with a note
>>>  that the text isn't quite right-- into the source that would
>>>  be used to build 6409bis if Randy and I were to do it.  My
>>>  previous note was written with that in mind.
>>
>>  OK... then please agree on an exact wording change to the
>>  errata report, and I will get the change made.
>
>  If Randy has strong preferences to the contrary and wants to
>  take the lead to sort out wording, I'll defer to him.   But my
>  preference right now, based on avoidance of pointless work,
>  would just be to add a sentence to what is in the erratum
>  already that says "the above wording is not quite correct and
>  needs to be examined carefully before a revised version is
>  inserted into a revised document" ... or something to that
>  effect - exact wording doesn't make any difference.  In other
>  words, I recommend flagging this rather than trying to develop
>  supposedly-final text that would just need another pass if/when
>  the document is revised.
>
>  If we were proposing posting a revision now and processing it,
>  my attitude would be somewhat different.
>
>     john

WFM.

(and I think that is the first time I've ever used that acronym.)

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Rocky's Lemma of Innovation Prevention:

Unless the results are known in advance, funding agencies will
reject the proposal.