Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 03:27:52PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: > > > Anyone who believes that this clarification is a "substantive change" > > has not looked at the existing spec from the perspective of formal > > correctness. > > Nonsense. It is a _correct_ clarification, but specifications can be > vague in ways that, with the wrong interpretation, fail to > interoperate. (One could argue that a significant portion of the > history of DNS is an illustration of that principle.) Correcting such > vagueness is still a substantive change, and should not be handled > using an erratum. If you think this is important enough, I urge you > to write 6698-bis, not abuse the erratum procedure.
I'm sorry, this is non-sensical. Rewriting an RFC for the simple addition of one single clarifying sentence, about something that is formally provable implied by what is already there, is a complete and thorough misunderstanding of the IETF process and the Proposed Standard document maturity level. It irritates me to see such a statement from folks that I consider part of the IETF leadership. -Martin _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
