Do folks think that is worth the effort? I'm not sure it is.
- Wendy Roome
On 04/21/2015, 16:27, "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 04/19/2015 08:43 PM, Wendy Roome wrote:
>> I believe Section 10.3, page 39 (third paragraph) says version tags must
>> be 1-64 non-blank ascii characters.
>>
>> I think that would be a reasonable restriction for cost-type-names as
>>well.
>
>If the both of you think that the above is a reasonable restriction for
>cost-type-names, we can file an errata with the RFC Editor.
>
>You can file errata by following FAQ item number 6 in [1].
>
>Just as an FYI, when erratas are filed, they will be sent for vetting to
>the Area Directors, WG chairs, and the WG mailing list. Once it has
>been determined that this is a genuine errata, the RFC Editor will
>update the RFC masthead with the errata.
>
>[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html
>
>Cheers,
>
>- vijay
>--
>Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
>1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
>Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
>Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
