[rfc-i] Errata process
nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Apr 22 14:57:54 PDT 2013
A better example of a recent errata submission is this:
Here we have an example where a WG was being non-responsive about a
significant problem in an RFC. An implementor (who does not author
RFCs, though perhaps we can change that) submitted an errata and this
finally got attention. The errata seems rather reasonable to me, but
maybe you can examine it and tell me why it's not. But even if it's
not, the process was useful nonetheless.
Also, quite aside from whether the above errata submission is
reasonable, what do you want the process to be, if you don't like it
as it stands?
More information about the rfc-interest