[rfc-i] RFC errata

Bruce Lilly blilly at erols.com
Wed Feb 23 13:28:12 PST 2005

> Re: [rfc-i] ABNF (RFC2234)
>  Date: 2005-02-22 14:59
>  From: Bob Braden <braden at isi.edu>

> The RFC Editor is certainly concerned about correctness of errata, so
> we always check a reported erratum with the RFC author(s), if they can
> be found, else with the relevant AD.  It would be difficult (but
> perhaps not impossible) to dig out which author/AD approved this
> change. 3 years later.
> Perhaps each erratum should include the names of the person(s) who
> signed off on it?  Then we can hang the guilty ;-)

In this specific instance, let's first worry about fixing the
problem (making sure the errata don't make unintended changes).
Fixing the blame is another matter...

As a reporter of several errata, and based on past communications
with the RFC Editor, my recent modus operandum is to send a note
to the RFC author(s) with the proposed change formatted as on the
Errata Page, with a request that the author(s) forward the message
to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org indicating their concurrence if they
agree.  Sometimes that works well (e.g. RFC 3834), sometimes ... not
so much (RFCs 724, 2045, and probably a few others that I don't
recall at the moment). 

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list