Re: Errata against RFC 5226 rejected

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/8/11 12:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

> That said, the best I can see for this report is "held for document
> update."  It's one of those things that's not worth spending time on,
> and, as Thomas says, the "should" language makes it fine as it is.

+1. There's work happening in the background on 5226bis. Let those
authors sort it out. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]