[rfc-i] Mandatory fix? (Was: Proposal for Handling RFC Errata

Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzmeyer at nic.fr
Fri Sep 14 06:39:18 PDT 2007


On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:13:40PM -0600,
 Danny McPherson <danny at tcb.net> wrote 
 a message of 35 lines which said:

> The RFC Editor has drafted a proposal for handling RFC
> errata.  The proposal is available in the Internet-Drafts
> repository as:
> 
>    draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-00.txt

The draft says:

> This is often a problem when reporters submit email claiming an
> error, but do not offer corrective text.

and:

> We envision that an erratum report record might include the
> following fields:
...
>             *Corrected text
...
>        * indicates information required of reporter

Requiring a "fix" seems very harsh. A reporter can find an
inconsistency without being able to know the best way to breaking
it. Or he can spot bad language without being good enough in English
to write a better one (I read English much more easily than I write
it).

I suggest to make "corrected text" optional.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list