[irrtoolset]Syntax errors in inet-rtr

Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> The errata was intended for typos and what would normally be
> considered minor editorial changes that don't change the meaning of
> the RFC.  If you want to make changes you still need a new RFC.

I wonder, which changes have be done, and if it would make sense to go 
for a new RFC. Personally, i would like to have extended bgp community 
handling within RPSL. Unfortunately this feature has not been included 
in RPSLng, and the current syntax is not even powerfull enough to clear 
your own community-space at ingress.

Ciao
	Christian