[rfc-i] Errata process
sm at resistor.net
Sat Feb 9 08:14:29 PST 2013
The errata system was created so that an author does not have to
repeat the same answers year in year out. It is said that although
every published RFC has been submitted to careful proof reading by
the RFC Editor and the authors, errors do sometimes go
undetected. There was an RFC Editor proposal for handling errata
(draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02). The expired draft mentioned that:
'We note that allowing technical errata is a slippery slope: there may
be a temptation to use errata to "fix" protocol design errors, rather
than publishing new RFCs that update the erroneous documents.'
I read http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt That is supposed to
be the authoritative version of RFC 5322. I don't know whether the
RFC Editor recommends that I should also read
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5322 I read it
anyway as I did not want to miss any known errors.
RFC 791 was published in September 1981. The first "technical"
erratum was reported in January 2007.
(i) Is there careful proof reading by the RFC Editor and the authors?
(ii) Is more attention being given to author instead of the readers?
I don't know the answer to (i). In my opinion the answer to (ii) is yes.
How far down the slippery slope has the errata process taken me? I
don't know. Has any thought been given to how the errata process
impacts on the RFC Series or is this another one of the repetitive tasks?
More information about the rfc-interest