> But https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/, > in particular: > > Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems or > significant confusion should be Verified. > Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an implementation or > deployment problem should be Hold for Document Update. > Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to implementation > or deployments should be Hold for Document Update. > > Did something change these criteria?
They're guidelines, not absolute rules, and judgment is expected. I support the guidelines, but I also appreciate and support Ben's good judgment. I, at least, am happy to leave it at that. (That said, I did mark John Levine's errata report against RFC 20 as HFDU....) Barry _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
