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

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Juergen Schoenwaelder 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.

As document editor I strongly agree with Juergen on this point.

I would also like to note that the two people who strongly objected
to having a discussion of this point in the guidelines document did
so because of concerns that it would be seen as an endorsement of
accessible-for-notify tables.  Dealing with this issue as an RFC
erratum does not send such a message (or so it seems to me).

Thanks,

Mike