Re: Do we agree on an RFC-Erratum for RFC2578

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Keith McCloghrie wrote:
kzm> [...] I think the best erratum would be to keep the "i.e.," but
kzm> add "accessible-for-notify" as a second allowed possibility.
kzm> This would be better because retaining "e.g.," makes
kzm> "read-write" and "read-create" into allowed possibilities
kzm> (despite the subsequent parenthetical sentence).

>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, David T. Perkins wrote:
dtp> I suggest that if you change this, then don't just change the
dtp> "i.e." to "e.g." (nor just put in "for example").

In other words, if the change is made, then the text should become:

2)  a conceptual row must contain at least one columnar object which is
    not an auxiliary object.  In the event that all of a conceptual
    row's columnar objects are also specified in its INDEX clause, then
    one of them must be accessible, i.e., have a MAX-ACCESS clause of
    "read-only" or "accessible-for-notify".  (Note that this situation
    does not arise for a conceptual row allowing create access, since
    such a row will have a status column which will not be an auxiliary
    object.)

I agree that this is a better alternative, and I think that it is
consistent with Mark's request.

//cmh