[rfc-i] Errata process
nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Apr 22 09:14:39 PDT 2013
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> On 4/22/2013 6:17 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> The question of WG consensus comes up when the specification contains
>> not just an ambiguity, but also offers several different plausible
>> solutions/choices for disambiguiation.
> That's clearly out of scope as per the errata guidelines; that would be a
> substantive change in the doc, and requires a new RFC.
It's all case-by-case. In some cases the ambiguity and possible
resolutions are too simple to bother with a new RFC just for that, yet
the ambiguity is too serious to do nothing at all.
More information about the rfc-interest