[rfc-i] draft-rfc-errata-process-02.txt

Turner, Sean P. turners at ieca.com
Wed Sep 24 16:42:05 PDT 2008

I actually do want to know if there is a process to allow us to update the
notes prior to it being verified ;)  If only the SSP can make the changes
that seems like maybe one more thing to put on our overworked ADs.

My biggest problem with the whole errata process is the lack of visibility.
There's no link from the RFC index or the WG pages to verified errata.  I
think there ought to be.  In fact I think the RFC boiler plate ought to be
modified to say there might be errata go look here in the http location.

Somebody asked me about a verified technical errata.  I couldn't find the
definition of what a verified technical errata, but more importantly what it
means to be verified (i.e., does it become part of the base standard).

If there's a bits on the wire change because of the errata I think that it
ought to force an update to the RFC.  There are probably only a few but I
found at least one (#302) that would change bits on the wire.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman at vpnc.org] 
>Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:40 PM
>To: Turner, Sean P.; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-rfc-errata-process-02.txt
>At 6:13 PM -0400 9/24/08, Turner, Sean P. wrote:
>>Is there a process to change the reported errata or is the errata 
>>rejected and a new errata submitted?  Say the change or the 
>notes needs 
>>to be tweaked.
>Sean is being a bit glib here. The erratum in question has 
>been validated. However, that erratum changes bits-on-the-wire 
>in the standards-track RFC. Someone reading the RFC would 
>reject messages created following the erratum. Thus, the 
>questions above have some real-world interop issues.
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--VPN Consortium

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list