[rfc-i] Errata process
sm at resistor.net
Fri Apr 19 15:17:28 PDT 2013
At 03:52 19-04-2013, Martin Rex wrote:
>More and more RFCs are written by document editors who have little
>to none implementation experience and reviewed by folks who have
>little implementation experience, with the result that a lot of
>issues that are important for implementors are omitted from the
>document (and sometimes for "political" reasons). The result is,
>that actual implementors run into an increasing number of unspecified,
>underspecified or ambiguos areas and request clarification.
>You're significantly mistaken. RFC 2246 is by no measure obsolete.
I am always mistaken. :-)
>but that errata was rejected on purely political grounds. So I haven't
>bothered yet to file a similar errata for the incorrect meta-data in rfc4346.
I don't know whether the errata was rejected on purely political
grounds. Seriously, I would have to read the entire discussion again
to form an opinion.
More information about the rfc-interest