[rfc-i] Pre-qualifying errata [was Re: Errata proposal]
sm at resistor.net
Tue Aug 21 11:12:07 PDT 2012
At 10:20 21-08-2012, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>But the errata email is already sent to these emails addresses, so I this is
>not a new problem.
This looks like duplicating the errata system to have a
pre-qualifying system where the email is sent out and then the system
where the erratum is added to the database. When an erratum is
reported for an IETF RFC, the Area Director has to act upon it even
if the authors are unresponsive. In the pre-qualifying system nobody
is responsible for anything.
>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.
According to the above you would like to track errata which are not
marked as reported or rejected.
>Perhaps people implementing internet protocols by reading the specifications
>are a dying specie, and the majority is implementing by looking at network
>traces, examples or open source code. If this is true, then I'll withdraw my
A lot of people use copy and paste techniques to implement a
specification. Some people have an X-Files mind set and only see
what they want to believe in a specification.
At 10:56 21-08-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>+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
More information about the rfc-interest