Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: adslmib-bounces at ietf.org 

> 
> Third, I doubt RFC 3278 will ever be changed.  The IESG can 
> amend the "Errata report" with this explanation, perhaps, if 
> everyone agrees.  Mike?  Menachem? Moti?  
> 
> Hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Bob Ray
> 

There are several ways to mark an errata request. 

Verified - practically meaning accepted as proposed
Rejected
Held for Document Update

In this case a change in semantics cannot be just accepted as proposed,
as the accepted method to change semantics of an object is according to
the SMI rules by deprecating the old object and defining a new one.  

We need however to get consensus in the WG on what is the right solution
from a technical point of view. 

Dan