OK then, one more try:
"Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but only syntactic or superficial changes
that do not affect the meaning of the document may be made."
Or if you want to be stricter:
"Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but only syntactic or superficial changes
that do not affect the choice of words or the meaning of the document may be made."
In any case, we will certainly revisit this when we start drafting errata
policy.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 21-Jun-25 10:46, Watson Ladd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 3:22 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 3:08 PM Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems to me that "do not affection operational concerns" is either
too vague to be useful or significantly broader than most of us intend.
What's the difference?
"Once published, RFCs may be reissued, but only syntactic or superficial changes
that do not affect the syntax for protocols themselves may be made."
or
"Once published, RFCs may be reissued. Changes that do not affect operational
concerns are acceptable."
The second I would read as much broader than the first. I think both
of these are IMHO way broader than we would like and too narrow; if
there's a verified erratum of "oh everyone does x but we wrote y due
to a hex/dec confusion" shouldn't that be fixable?
thanks,
Rob
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
