--On Thursday, December 08, 2011 14:02 -0500 Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As background, the actual errata is at > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226&eid=2715 >... > I don't see the need for this. "should" seems good enough for > me. Also, the wording "any ranges that are ... etc." implies > to me that the list provided are examples and if a category > doesn't apply, you don't include it. > > In other words, I don't see a problem with the existing text > that warrants bothering with an errata. > > But maybe I'm missing what the problem is. Agreed, and let me go a half-step further. This sort of suggested change would be relevant iff 5226 were a rigid, normative, spec from which people needed to select an enumerated option and use it without variation. While people sometimes confuse it with such a spec, it isn't, has never been, and we would be, IMO, doing ourselves a serious disservice by turning it into one. As long as that is the case, the level of precision tuning implied by the proposed erratum isn't so much wrong as it is irrelevant. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf