Subject: Re: RFC 3165 errata

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:01:45 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 18:07:04 +0200
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: disman <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RFC 3165 errata
...
> The definition of smLaunchRunIndexNext on page 33 uses the following
> SYNTAX clause:
> 
>        SYNTAX      Integer32 (1..2147483647)
> 
> This range is inconsistent with the text in the DESCRIPTION clause,
> which in some cases requires to return 0 as a special value. Hence,
> the SYNTAX clause should be:
> 
>        SYNTAX      Integer32 (0..2147483647)
...

Ugh.  Does it make sense to do an i-d with the correction and
re-submit as soon as possible, or should we wait and treat 
this as an "editorial" fix when it's time to consider advancing
the specification to Draft Standard?

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:29:56 +0200

>>>>> Randy Presuhn writes:

Randy> Ugh.  Does it make sense to do an i-d with the correction and
Randy> re-submit as soon as possible, or should we wait and treat this
Randy> as an "editorial" fix when it's time to consider advancing the
Randy> specification to Draft Standard?

I think we should treat this as what it is - a bug fix.

And the proper time to fix this bug is the next revision of the
document. I doubt that fixing a bug prevents one from advancing a
specification - especially if the bug and its fix is known for some
time.

I do not think we need to take any further actions at the moment.

/js