Subject: Re-work on RFC2739

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:19:58 -0500

We have a couple of options on this change. 

First off, we need to agree that there is a problem with the draft and we 
need to make the change.  Since no one responded to Bruce's original note 
about the problems in RFC2739, I am assuming that everyone agrees???? 
Speak up or forever hold your piece.

If I don't hear any comments back on this statement, then here's what I 
recommend we do. We have lots of options that we can use to make an RFC 
change.

 1- Send in a notice which is published under "known bugs in RFC's"
   which no one ever reads (so I've heard)

 2- Write a new RFC which update the old one, and "just" fix this
   error

 3- Write a new RFC which obsoletes the old one

I and one of our area directors suggest number 2.

Comments/thoughts/disagreements/totally dont' cares

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:35:07 -0500

My understanding is it's just the piece that's wrong. Here's verbiage from 
a note from an AD - 

"I.e. write a new I-D which only talk about the part of the old RFC which 
is
wrong, and do the normal sing-and-dance thing with it."

How do you interpret that statement.  I think it means just talk about the 
part.  There is a precedent for this - i just don't have time to look up 
an example RFC to show everyone.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

<[email-masked]>
01/29/02 18:27

        To:     <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: Re-work on RFC2739

Assume that #2 means to publish a complete text for revised RFC and not 
just an errata sheet in the form of a RFC?
If I don't hear any comments back on this statement, then here's what I 
recommend we do. We have lots of options that we can use to make an RFC 
change.