[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.
> 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 Ditto withdrawn, I think, since an errata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.
More information about the rfc-interest