Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <[email protected]> wrote: > Was there any conclusion of what to do here, which I think applies to > errata 6648: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=6648
> I don't think that this is an errata that can be verified, hence I'm
> questioning whether "Held for document update" would be both correct
> and helpful. Would it be useful to update the text of the errata at
> all, or alternatively, I could just point to this thread in the notes.
I wrote that errata based upon some discussion at some point about
implementing things, and probably my
draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations.
**The SNI comment is really the Technical update part**
I'd like the XML to be patched, so whatever gets that done.
--
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
