[rfc-i] Errata process
nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Apr 22 15:58:52 PDT 2013
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> On 4/22/2013 3:23 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> The key words here are "... that might be different from the intended
>> consensus ...".
> The key words to me are "or involve large textual changes". IMO, adding a
> new sentence is large, esp. when it involves new content.
That seems silly to me. This is why I think errata must be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis.
>>> First, I want it to be a documented part of an RFC, not just an IESG
>> OK, now we're getting somewhere. Maybe you should submit an I-D?
> Sure, the onus is on me if that's what I want. However, there clearly should
> not be an errata process until that happens, so maybe the onus is really on
> the IESG.
There is an errata process. Be it unofficial or not I don't think we
should demand it be closed until there's an RFC describing it: it'd be
like demanding that RFCs published prior to RFC1310 be unpublished, or
maybe like going back in time and demanding that the RFC-Editor stop
publishing RFCs until an RFC is published like 1310 or 2026 (hmmm,
that would have a bit of a chicken-egg problem).
> Or do they just get to do whatever they want? (don't bother answering that;
> we already know)
I just posted an example of a very recent (from last week!) errata
submission where the existing process appears to be working well. Or
perhaps you think it's failing?
Do you have an example of errata process abuse?
Anyways, I'd welcome an I-D on this subject.
More information about the rfc-interest