RE: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu- 08.txt]

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 15:10
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: C. M. Heard; Mreview (E-mail); Mark Ellison
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D
> ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu- 08.txt]
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>  
> > Randy Presuhn suggested that we probably have intended that 
> > accisble-for-notify was/is OK (in other words that we potentialy 
> > have meant "e.g." instead of "i.e.". I personally agree with that.
> 
> If there is concensus that "i.e." should have been "e.g.", then we
> should file an RFC errata and probably that is even good enough
> since I believe we really discuss a corner case here and if we try
> to clarify all these corner cases in the review guidelines document,
> the guidelines document may become less usable.
> 
That would be fine with me too. But in order to do that we need more
supportive statements here. In fact maybe better is to state it in this doc
and do the RFC-erratum after approval of this BCP. That way it goes through
IETF Last Call (sorry to worry about process).

Bert
> /js