[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5891 (3969)

[Barry Leiba]

>> I have started a 5891bis draft to reflect Barry's suggested
>> change.
>>
>> FWIW, with the possible exception of the choice of "exact
>> definition" rather than "explanation", I don't see this as
>> properly an erratum.  I believe that Barry's proposed text is an
>> improvement, but a "hold for future update" improvement not a
>> correction to a substantive error in the document.
...
> What is needed IF we do this is to add a contextual rule that
> actually forbid all M codepoints as first codepoint of a string.
> I.e. an update to 5892 (that include the base seed for the
> contextual rule registry).

RIght... what all this says to me is that this errata report gets
marked as "Hold For Document Update", which I will do now.

Barry