[rfc-i] Errata process

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Apr 22 23:19:01 PDT 2013

On 2013/04/23 7:23, Nico Williams wrote:

>> appear with the doc, even labeled as such. Finally, I would like the process
> I certainly agree that spam errata should be removed.

Yes indeed.

> I'm not sure I
> agree that rejected errata should not be listed: I like history.  (But
> if they should be listed then they should be listed as rejected, of
> course, and clearly so.  Ditto withdrawn, I think, since an errata
> submission may well have led to much discussion, and it's useful to be
> able to find that.)

It may be a bit more than history. Let's say there's a sentence in an 
RFC that says A, in a place where it might also have made sense to say 
NOT A. Let's say somebody submits an erratum: "change A to NOT A". This 
gets rejected. If it's easily visible, then everybody who reads the 
document and starts to think "didn't they mean NOT A here?" quickly gets 
the confirmation that no, they meant A, not NOT A.

Sorry for not searching through the errata database for an actual example.

Regards,   Martin.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list