[rfc-i] Pre-qualifying errata [was Re: Errata proposal]

Peter Koch pk at DENIC.DE
Tue Aug 21 11:10:14 PDT 2012

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:56:34AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> > 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.

I'd agree here, but that is a different issue from Marc's statement
that 'spurious errata create more work' for the implementer (as opposed
to the reviewer).  Rejected errata can be ignored by the implementer.

A pointer to the relevant mailing list is only part of that education/outreach
effort needed to encourage and appropriately channel feedback.  The person
you quote above might similarly be reluctant to subscribe to the WG list (often
enough a requirement for posting, even more so thanks to all the Note Well
issues) because for them that would essentially mean they
'become a member of the IETF'.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list