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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:29:25PM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> The proposed erratum is to change the "i.e." into an "e.g." because we
> intended to say (for example) in the above text. So it would read:
> 
>   (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, e.g., have a MAX-ACCESS clause of
>        "read-only". (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 am fine with this change as it is minimal allowing a corner case
without really spelling it out (that is pointing to such design
options).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany