[rfc-i] Errata process

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Apr 22 14:34:31 PDT 2013


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> Here's a test case:
>
> RCF6093 Sec 2.2.
>
> Before that RFC, would that clarification qualify as an errata?

[Bad example: section 2.2 doesn't update anything, it only describes
what's happened so far.  Section 4 does.  At any rate...]

It could have, if there'd been consensus on that much, much earlier,
but 30 years later, and with a long history involved... no.  Let's say
that some precursor to RFC6093 was submitted as an errata, so we
discuss it and decide it's too radical, or requires too much text, or
whatever, and so we reject and instead charter/re-charter an
appropriate WG to work on the problem, or we pursue an individual
submission I-D.

What's the problem with that?  Why are you so concerned we're trying
to put one over on you?

> --
>
> Further, speaking as an author of individual RFCs, I don't accept the IESG's
> unilateral declaration of what qualify as errata and what do not for all
> RFCs. They do not have jurisdiction over these matters for ISE docs.

What choice do you have?  They could update your RFCs anyways.  Or
obsolete them.  Or move them to HIstoric.  You could appeal in any
case, of course, and that's that.

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list