[rfc-i] Errata process
touch at isi.edu
Mon Apr 22 14:44:27 PDT 2013
On 4/22/2013 2:34 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> 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.
It explains the ambiguity with RFC 793 and that there were documents
before this that noted the error, FWIW.
> 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?
IMO, any clarification of the internal inconsistency in RFC793 required
an "UPDATES" RFC to resolve it.
>> 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.
That takes a lot more than an email that need never appear on a public list.
More information about the rfc-interest