[rfc-i] Errata process

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Apr 22 13:41:46 PDT 2013


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> 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'.

You're arguing that there's no errata process, or there shouldn't be
for anything but the most obvious issues.  I don't agree.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list