At 8:16 AM -0700 4/16/08, The IESG wrote: > o Approved - The errata is appropriate under the criteria below and > should be available to implementors or people deploying the RFC. > > o Archived - The errata is not a necessary update to the RFC. > However, any future update of the document should consider this > errata, and determine whether it is correct and merits including > in the update. Assuming that both categories will be in the errata repository, the difference between these two may be clear to the IESG, but it will not be clear to readers of the errata. I suspect that the two categories were created so that the IESG only needs to consider "errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems or significant confusion", not the minor stuff, but this differentiation will simply cause more arguments about what errors would cause problems of what magnitude. In the end, it is probably better for readers of the errata to have just one category, and for the IESG to not waste its time differentiating between the two categories. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf