This is an old revision of the document!
Criteria for a successful errata system
- 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
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.
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?
- With multiple publication formats, do all formats get an alternate, corrected version? Or do we just focus on one of the outputs (example, create a second HTML in a separate location that includes all the approved corrections and links to the modding system?)
- 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
