Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > The worry I have here is that by the time we get to the document update > people may not be around anymore to remember why the 'SHOULD' ought to > be a 'MUST' and then the wrong change will be made.
okay. Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: > If the errata is "Hold for Doc Update" then the RFC editor won't > automatically apply the diff. I'm pretty sure that is only ever done > for verified errata. so, let's mark it this way for now. > There are also notes that can go along with the errata to give further > information (e.g., what the proposed long-term resolution is) if that > is helpful. If have consensus for the next text, then I think the RFC-editor site can do the patch process, though, when we mark it as verified. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
