[rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 14:27:37 PST 2019
The RFC (and specifically the .txt file today) is the archival form of
the document, so cannot be changed by definition.
However, I think that having an *annotated* version of the RFC, with
approved errata incorporated somehow, would be interesting. But that
needs real work; I don't think it can be automated. So I wonder whether
it is worth the cost.
Also, for this to work as intended, obsoleted RFCs would have an
annotated version which says *only* "Obsoleted by RFCxxxx", and RFCs
updated by another RFC would need extensive annotation.
So on the whole I think the header on the HTMLized versions is
the most practical approach. Look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460
which shows all these feature, including a link to the errata.
On 2019-01-17 07:49, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
>> What one thing would make the editing process easier or more effective? [Free form text]
> Post publication editing:
> I joined this mailing list proposing integrating the validated errata in the RFCs, without necessary creating a separate
> RFC with distinct number for the update.
> The idea is that readers can just pick a document (RFC), read it and don’t struggle with fixed misconsistencies in the
> document, already clarified in the errata.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest