[rfc-i] Proposing mailing list for errata

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu Aug 4 08:10:02 PDT 2011

On 8/4/2011 2:18 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello all,
> Currently when submitting an RFC Erratum report, the message is sent to
> authors, sponsoring AD, current ADs of the particular area, WG, if any,
> and copied to RFC Editor. My proposal is to create the mailing list at
> rfc-editor.org which would be dedicated to discussion of RFC Errata (or
> technical only). All [technical?] errata reports will be copied there;
> and community consensus will be easier to claim when approving or
> rejecting errata.
> As an alternative, several lists may be created, dedicated to errata for
> Apps, Gen, Int, etc. RFCs, eg. categorized by area, in order to allow
> people who are knowledgeable in particular area to express their opinion
> on errata for RFCs belonging to such area, not requiring them to receive
> tons of messages regarding errata in RFC which they may not provide any
> input.

We already have lists for this purpose: the WG lists if relevant, the 
area lists (saag, int-area, etc.) if there is no WG list, and the IETF 
list for others (e.g., individual submissions, etc.).

But IMO errata are for *significant* errors that were overlooked or 
missed when an RFC was published, NOT as a means to update or correct an 
RFC. And typo errata ought to qualify only when critical.

I define "significant" or "critical" as affecting the implementation of 
a compliant protocol, or the understanding of a key recommendation or 
defining concept. It does not include every spelling, punctuation, or 
omission error unless it is affects these aspects.

If those who posted errata put such 'acid tests' before posting, the 
errata review load would go down and we wouldn't need to consider making 
a new mailing list ;-)

If, however, that's not going to happen, sure - an errata list would 
help the rest of us ignore the heavy stream of chaff.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list