[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.


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.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list