[rfc-i] Proposed scheme for handling RFC errata

Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU
Wed Aug 29 12:15:53 PDT 2007

  *> Ah, that is the misunderstanding. S/he doesn't.


I see how the misunderstanding arose; our fault.  The list of fields in
Section 2.1 is intended to summarize the data we will keep for each
erratum; it is (deliberately) a superset of what the reporter will
enter.  (We were trying to define the overall process without going
into implementation details.) In fact, that list is subtly subdivided
by an extra blank line; those fields before the break are those that we
imagine a reporter would enter, those after the break would be supplied
from our database.

We will try to make this clearer in a revision.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list