[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DateAndTime TC oversight in RFC 2579
- To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Subject: Re: DateAndTime TC oversight in RFC 2579
- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:45:02 +0100
- Cc: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>, "Keith McCloghrie (E-mail)" <kzm@cisco.com>
- In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155032D9E9E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
- Mail-followup-to: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>, "Keith McCloghrie (E-mail)" <kzm@cisco.com>
- References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155032D9E9E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
- Reply-to: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 03:45:02PM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> It could be as simple as something aka:
>
> The DESCRIPTION clause of the DateAndTime TC needs an
> additional paragraph:
>
> The special 8-octet value of '0000000000000000'H can be used
> to represent a NULL value.
Like others have said before, changes this to read "special value"
rather than "NULL value".
> - I think this emendment is GOOD/BAD (pls choose GOOD or BAD)
GOOD since this just documents current practice.
> - I think it does/does-not require an IETF Last Call
> (pls choose does or does-not)
According to the RFC editor pages, erratas require verification by the
authors or the IESG. Have we had IETF last calls for erratas before?
If we really need an IETF last call, then this is probably not an
errata in the first place.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany