[rfc-i] Errata process
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Apr 23 13:42:41 PDT 2013
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:19 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> On 2013/04/23 7:23, Nico Williams wrote:
>>> appear with the doc, even labeled as such. Finally, I would like the
>> I certainly agree that spam errata should be removed.
> Yes indeed.
And let's not get into a debate about that. Spam is like porn: you
know it when you see it.
>> 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 Ditto withdrawn, I think, since an errata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.
That's exactly what I meant about history. Someone runs into a
problem in an RFC, so they research it. If someone else ran into that
problem once, it'd be nice to see a paper trail, even if the problem
turns out to be a non-problem -- no matter what the disposition, the
history will help the second person avoid retreading it.
More information about the rfc-interest