User Tools

Site Tools


erratasystem:rethink

This is an old revision of the document!


Criteria for a successful errata system

  1. a measure of a successful errata system will be one visually and through metadata differentiate between levels of usefulness for an implementer/reader.

Proposal 1

Replace the concept of errata with a system that would allow anyone to comment on an RFC, with the RFC Editor or stream controllers to mark some concepts as important. The 'errata system' would be a system of comments, not a system of discretely managed items. Comments that stream controllers (or their delegates) mark as important could then be shown through an “errata” link. Alternatively, there could be a general 'mod up/down' [1] system that anyone with a datatracker account could use to indicate the importance of the entry. The RFC Editor could handle unambiguous typos

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modding

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.

erratasystem/rethink.1421342026.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/01/15 09:13 by rsewikiadmin