[rfc-i] Errata process

SM sm at resistor.net
Fri Apr 19 15:17:28 PDT 2013

Hi Martin,
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 mailing list