On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Fred Baker wrote: > I think this is a mis-use of AUTH48; the working group has > considered the draft and said what it wanted to say, and at this > point the RFC Editor is asking you whether they changed the intent > of the draft in the editing process or whether perhaps your address > has changed. Changing the draft in a substantive way is out of scope > of the question you are being asked.
So the idea is to publish the wording as is and once the RFC pops up we file an errata that clarifies that the sentence The use of symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability. also implies that "::" MUST be used if there are at least two consecutive 16-bit 0 fields. Or can we compromise on a less heavy change, e.g. adding just before the quoted sentence. If at least two consecutive 16-bit 0 fields are present, the symbol "::" MUST be used. This is a less invasive change (and I think the WG had previously some concensus on this, but the WG chairs will know). But yes, the formally correct procedure is likely the errata approach. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
