> > or something similar. It might be good to add this as errdata since i'm
> > pretty certain this can be seen in iop tests.
>
> I'm not familiar enough with the erratum process to say whether this is appropriate, but I agree that this seems like a good thing to clarify. It might make sense to write a brief I-D with clarifications to RFC 4745, especially if there are other interop issues.
>
> --Richard
>
The errdata process <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php> is imo just
enough, since this is a pretty minor clarification where a one liner fix
will make the intended behavior unambiguous. I don't mind if someone
wants to make a bigger stab on this, but certainly, i'm _not_ proposing
that. Imo, for implementors, errdata is authoritative and fast enough
(instead of referring to some mailing list thread discussion).
The rfc authors have been silent though...
br Jari
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
