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

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

I concur that dealing with this as an errata does not seem to endorse
the practice.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:19 PM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D 
> ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>