[rfc-i] Errata process
sm at resistor.net
Wed Feb 13 16:18:49 PST 2013
At 14:56 13-02-2013, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>The 'status' (Verified, Held for Document Update, or Rejected) that the
>stream manager selects for a given erratum is meant to provide guidance
>on this topic. For example, Verified errata "should be available to
>implementors or people deploying the RFC". I don't believe it is
>explicitly stated anywhere that Verified errata are normative text that
>MUST be read with an RFC, but my impression is that is the expectation.
A RFC is said to be immutable. Some people will read the errata and
some people won't. Some people will understand the "Verified" and
"Held for Document Update". I don't know the effect of all that
outside an IETF context (people who are not familiar with the IETF or
>I am not actually sure what you are asking. Are you asking of there is
>careful proofreading of an RFC, or careful proofreading of an errata?
>And what kind of attention?
What I mean is that more attention is given to the desires of the
authors instead of the readers. I would describe the "problem" as
occurring before RFC Editor processing. It's not that there isn't
careful proofreading. When an erratum is filed against a RFC which
is a month's old it points to a problem somewhere. Section 2.1.3 of
RFC 6635 mentioned that the effort must include the dimensions of
document quality. Is there been any analysis of the (accepted)
technical errata from a RFC Series perspective? I prefer not to say
more about the readers or else someone will suggest a survey. :-)
>The errata system is actually something that comes up in my mind quite a
>bit. The urge to use the errata system as a quantifiable measure of
>something (quality? level of interest? amount of time that submitters
>have in any given day to submit errata?) is huge. As much as I would
>like some kind of quantifiable measure of quality, however, the errata
>system was not intended nor designed for that purpose and is not
>representative of the RFCs being published. It is a very useful system,
>particularly for implementors who need to avoid buggy systems and for
>-bis authors who could use the pointers on areas that need focus, but it
>is not really useful for other measure.
I was thinking about whether it could be used to get a rough sense of
the quality of documents being produced. It's not really a good
indicator for the reasons you described. It "might" be worthwhile to
think about how the errata system fits in the bigger picture.
Here's an odd case. Errata #3481 was filed against RFC 2246. That
RFC is obsolete (I am ignoring the specifics). In my humble opinion
it is worthwhile to apply changes to the up-to-date version of the
specification as that RFC is supposed to be better than then obsoleted RFC.
>And that said, I am not sure if this touches on what are you asking
>about or not.
It does. :-)
BTW, there is a problem accessing www.rfc-editor.org over IPv6.
More information about the rfc-interest