[rfc-i] Pre-qualifying errata [was Re: Errata proposal]
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Aug 21 10:56:34 PDT 2012
On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug at acm.org> wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 10:32 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:20:08AM -0700, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>>> Again, the problem I have is to track the errata for each RFC I implement
>>> - I have to read them, understand them and decide if they apply to my
>>> implementation or not. So spurious errata create more work for me.
>> so your real problem is that pending errata aren't dealt with quick (or
>> rigid) enough?
> No, it's that one should discuss with people in the know before filling an errata.
+1. We cannot force an errata-submitter to talk to the authors or mailing list first, but we have seen cases where someone submits what turns out to be a bogus errata and is then surprised when people jump on them. There is a cultural issue here as well. I have had at least one errata submitter tell me he didn't think he could just email the authors because they were famous and thus outside their class. Saying something on the errata submission page about "please contact the authors and maybe the WG first" would help reduce that confusion.
More information about the rfc-interest