[rfc-i] Mandatory fix? (Was: Proposal for Handling RFC Errata
braden at ISI.EDU
Fri Sep 14 08:59:37 PDT 2007
*> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:39:18 +0200
*> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic.fr>
*> To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
*> X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
*> Subject: [rfc-i] Mandatory fix? (Was: Proposal for Handling RFC Errata
*> List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions."
*> The draft says:
*> > This is often a problem when reporters submit email claiming an
*> > error, but do not offer corrective text.
*> > 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
Sorry we were not clearer. A later paragraph on the same page,
beginning "Generally, we would want...", was intended to say that the
Original/Corrected pair is desirable when possible, but it is not
required. The intent is that the reporter can simply leave the
Corrected field (or the Original/Corrected pair of fields) blank and
put the report entirely in the Notes/Rationale section. The task for
the SSP, authors, etc., will then be to interpret the Notes/Rationale
and create the appropriate Original/Corrected fields for the posted
erratum. OTOH, we do want to encourage reporters to be as specific
as they can be in the initial report.
*> I suggest to make "corrected text" optional.
Yes, we should not have put asterisks on the Original and Corrected
text fields (this was an oversight resulting from the 12 drafts we went
through to produce this proposal; sigh). We will fix this in the next
revision; thanks for pointing it out.
Bob Braden for the RFC Editor
More information about the rfc-interest