[rfc-i] Errata process

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Tue Apr 23 13:15:02 PDT 2013

On 4/22/2013 11:19 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> 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  Ditto withdrawn, I think, since an errata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.

Or maybe that there are either political or other reasons for the issue.

The doc means what it says until an approved errata or RFC update is 
issued. Until that time, there's no point in cataloging all the things a 
document does not mean via an informal process.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list