[rfc-i] Errata process

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Mon Apr 22 09:46:51 PDT 2013



On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> On 4/22/2013 6:17 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
>
>>> The question of WG consensus comes up when the specification contains
>>> not just an ambiguity, but also offers several different plausible
>>> solutions/choices for disambiguiation.
>>
>>
>> That's clearly out of scope as per the errata guidelines; that would be a
>> substantive change in the doc, and requires a new RFC.
>
> It's all case-by-case.  In some cases the ambiguity and possible
> resolutions are too simple to bother with a new RFC just for that, yet
> the ambiguity is too serious to do nothing at all.

There's no such thing; anything that changes the CONTENT of an RFC needs 
to be in a new RFC - excepting ONLY errors that were never intended in 
the first place (e.g., a typo that changes code).

All other attempts to clarify ambiguities need to be done by process as 
an UPDATES or OBSOLETES - especially for standards.

Otherwise, this is an end-run around IETF process, not simply a 
'convenient alternative'.

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list