[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu- 08.txt]
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:48:54PM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > 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).
I can agree to post an errata that there is an i.e. / e.g. error or
something like that but I am not so sure I want to have this corner
case largely discussed in the review guidelines document.
I understand your procedural concerns - on the other hand, we managed
to get other erratas posted for the SMIv2 and perhaps we can use the
same path? All boils down to whether we can reach a strong support
here (assuming the relevant people are listening here anyway).
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany