On 08/31/2011 11:14 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
When the text in 2119 is already clearly written, but people fail to read it,
> I don't understand why adding more text in yet another document is
> likely to improve understanding. Adding additional text and
> documents inherently increases the burden on readers.
This seems pretty clear to me, and perhaps it's been the only clear
thing in this discussion so far. 2119 was published in 1997 and aside
from a typo (that does not seem to have caused confusion, for whatever
that's worth) there haven't been a lot of complaints. Thumbs up on
correcting typos, and both thumbs down on using the process of
correcting a typo to reopen a "SHOULD/MAY" rathole, or even a "NOT
RECOMMENDED" rathole. I'd rather let the typo stand. I don't think
the putative benefits of revising 2119 justify the effort.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf