On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, The IESG wrote:
o Rejected - The errata is in error, or proposes a change to the RFC
that is clearly inappropriate to do with an errata. In the latter
case, if the change is to be considered for future updates of the
document, it should be proposed using other channels than errata,
such as a WG mailing list.
o Archived - The errata is not a necessary update to the RFC.
However, any future update of the document should consider this
errata, and determine whether it is correct and merits including
in the update.
One of the guidelines says:
8. Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing
an IANA registration procedure, to something that might be
different from the intended consensus when the document was
approved should be Archived.
I do not understand an errata that suggests changing the defined
process should be Archived. Shouldn't this be flat out Rejected?
The problem I see with this proposed errata process is that "Archived"
tries to fill the gap for the need of an issue tracker for substantial
change suggestions (today these are sent to a subset of authors, WG
chairs, and/or WG mailing list if active, but are rarely tracked
I don't think the errata process should be used to track substantial
change proposals. That procedure needs to be separate from the errata
process, and it the best place for it would probably be at @ietf.org.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
IETF mailing list