[rfc-i] Description of the current situation (Was: Proposal for Handling RFC Errata

Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU
Fri Sep 14 08:43:30 PDT 2007

  *> > In general, we cannot guarantee the correctness of these errata; the
  *> > reader must make his/her own judgment.
  *> Which seems contradictory. Does the RFC editor check or not? If it
  *> currently checks, it should not put the warning above. If it does not,
  *> the process could be made faster.
  *> Or is the warning just legal boilerplate, intended to be ignored?

Ummm. Somewhere in the middle, actually.  It was intended as a "caveat
emptor" to the reader... "trust but verify".  We certainly do check
editorial errata, but we are not always competent to check technical
errata.  But (if an erratum is not marked "unverified"), then we have
made a reasonable effort to ensure that we have a signoff from some
person or persons whom we *believe* to be competent in the RFC in

But we are only the messenger...  errors happen, and we want people to
be appropriately wary.  That was particularly sensitive in the case of
standards track documents... the proposed scheme will put the
responsibility for standards track documents where it belongs, in the

Hope this clarifies,

Bob Braden for the RFC Editor

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list