[rfc-i] Errata process

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Mon Apr 22 11:00:11 PDT 2013


Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> > We know painfully well that a lot of implementors do poorly on formal
> > correctness and will miss non-trivial implications, so adding explicit
> > clarifications is exactly what the errata process has been designed for.
> 
> Please review the errata guidelines; clarifications are NOT part of the 
> list of approved items unless they are unintended errors by those 
> responsible for the document's original content.

Huh?

I believe we can safely assume that defects in an IETF stream, standards
track document, which impairs interop on an explicitly defined protocol
feature, is _unintentional_.

If the IESG starts approving proposed standards with intentional ignorance
about problems (rather that explicitly and carefully waiving certain problems
in PS documents), then the IETF will be in serious trouble.


-Martin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list