This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
erratasystem:rethink [2015/02/02 16:00] rsewikiadmin |
erratasystem:rethink [2015/02/02 16:12] rsewikiadmin |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
===Proposal 2=== | ===Proposal 2=== | ||
- | [A]n IETF-operated web site that is preferable to the competition (e.g., tools) and that presents errata of this sort as highlighted in a different color on the presented RFC, rather than as comments that are in a separate visual stream from the presented RFC. I would like errata to be done similarly, if they are verified by someone who can check whether a new consensus is required to affirm the erratum. | + | A single website |
===Process Diagram for errata submission=== | ===Process Diagram for errata submission=== | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Who decides if the submission path is correct? | ||
+ | * Do we need a portal so that the user has a simpler experience, rather than having to figure out the rules for the bug tracker, modding system, and errata system? | ||
+ | * How will entries move from one system to another? | ||
+ | * At what points in that process do we have to design tools to interface between systems? | ||
+ | * With multiple publication formats, do all formats get an alternate, corrected version? | ||
+ | * Is there still value in having the info page link to all the different types of errata (RSE votes yes). | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Note: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Additional diagrams or descriptions required for the approval processes |