[rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher

Дилян Палаузов dilyan.palauzov at aegee.org
Wed Jan 16 15:58:37 PST 2019

Hi Brian,

I do not say that the original text shall somehow be lost or hard to access.  I also do not ask for assigning the
updated RFC a new number.

Think of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4960?CURRENT where section 8.3 would show the update from 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1440 integrated versus https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4960?ORIGINAL
without the update. With https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4960 showing the content of the former, unless there are other
strong opinions.  The headers with Errata are there, but honestly, how often do you read the errata after reading a RFC
for a first time?  It is just easier for everybody, if the corrections are no extra material to read, but are integrated
in an updated RFC.

Likewise for the PDF version of the RFCs and epub.

I see no need for annotations, since under these circumstances (requesting …?CURRENT or just not asking for the old
text) the old text shall be irrelevant.  Errata keep their form and remain the means to track changes.

Who is in charge for updating at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1440 the link behind “RFC 4960” from 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4960.txt to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4960 ?


On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 11:27 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Дилян,
> (Cc: trimmed)
> 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.
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> On 2019-01-17 07:49, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Regards
> >   Дилян
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> > 

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list