On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 08:42:32PM -0700, SM wrote:
> Hi Victor,
> At 19:02 17-04-2013, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> >I am trying to be flexible in how this is resolved, but surely
> >Andrew's response is wrong. I will resist what little temptation
> >exists to explain it again, by now the thread contains more than
> >enough ways of explaining the same thing. Even Paul has agreed
> >that my observation is basically sound (and does not change the
> >standard), the only question that remains is what is the most
> >effective way to communicate this to server operators so that the
> >standard will work in practice.
>
> The corrected text may be valuable but in my opinion it is, as
> Andrew Sullivan mentioned, a substantive change. This is grounds
> for rejecting erratum #3594.
Any grounds or explanation for this opinion? How is text that
highlights a deductive-logic consequence of the specification a
change?
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
