[rfc-i] Errata process
sm at resistor.net
Mon Apr 22 11:36:51 PDT 2013
At 09:25 22-04-2013, Martin Rex wrote:
>This is not "the Church of Internet Protocols", where consensus
>process or leadership decisions create "Proposed Standard Dogmas",
>that are sacred and immune to clarifications.
I don't think that Proposed Standards are sacred or immune to clarifications.
>Unless we want to riducule ourselves about the "Engineering" in IETF,
>we need a means to make clarifications available to implementors
>of Proposed Standards in a timely fashion.
And the way to do that might be by updating the specification.
>And we really need to get over the issue of document editors looking
>at errata as a personal offense. Engineering is *NOT* about maintaining
There are some document editors who actually take the blame for mistakes.
There may be another way to criticize an IETF specification. :-)
More information about the rfc-interest