[rfc-i] The errata issue [Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher]

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Mon Aug 19 16:28:02 PDT 2013


On 8/18/13 12:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 18/08/2013 18:13, SM wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>> At 20:00 17-08-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> For the IETF stream, certainly. But there are three other streams, and
>>> it seems more like an editorial function than a publishing function to
>>> dispatch errata to the streams and ensure that they eventually reply.
>>
>> Errata does not have anything to do with the production of a RFC.  The
>> process is basically to:
>>
>>   (i)   Accept the report
>>
>>   (ii)  Send a message to the relevant stream about the report
>>
>>   (iii) Update the status of report (accepted, rejected, etc.)
>>
>> There isn't any editorial work performed at the RFC Editor side.
> 
> Not in the literal sense, no. But interacting with the streams,
> knowing the structure of the streams, knowing who to nudge when
> nothing happens - all these are what the production center does
> every day, and none of them are what the publisher does in the
> normal course of events.
> 

I find the errata process a particularly blurry construct.  Making clear
where there are errors in published documents so people do not implement
broken things is an important aspect of the overall service the Series
provides to the world.  However, the actual process is not owned by the
RFC Editor; it is owned by the streams and we are the facilitators of
the process.  I think it could be argued that the mechanical process of
housing the errata system and its automatic updates and notifications is
a Publisher thing.  Similarly, the mechanical process of data archiving
and online availability of RFCs is a Publisher thing.  The human
knowledge required in helping process the information is an RPC thing
for RFCs and an amalgamation of RPC and IESG action for errata.  I don't
know if or how this can be tidied up, or what the priority is for doing
so, but I hope we don't lose the discussion.

-Heather



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list