[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5891 (3969)

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, 21 April, 2014 09:16 -0400 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba at computer.org> wrote:

>>> 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.

Per Patrik's comment, I also change the 5981bis draft to avoid
words like "exact definition" entirely.  It now points to both
sections and describes the combination as "an explanation".  I
think that provides the needed references without inviting
quibbles about what constitutes a/the definition.

I'm not going to put this aside until someone decides it is
worth posting updated versions of 5891 and presumably 5821.
Peter, if you feel like making the pass I suggested and posting
requested changes to the idnabis mailing list (rather than the
RFC Editor's Errata system), it would probably accelerate that
decision.

    john