----- Original Message -----
From: "Cyrus Daboo" <cyrus(_at_)daboo(_dot_)name>
To: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>; "Ronald Bonica"
Cc: "Scott O Bradner" <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>; "IETF Discussion"
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:52 PM
--On September 16, 2011 10:10:06 AM -0400 Keith Moore
I think we need a low-overhead and relatively informal mechanism of
reporting errata and requesting clarifications, and maybe that it should
be expanded a bit to serve as an implementation and interoperability
reporting mechanism. But I don't think that having such a mechanism
requires us to maintain expertise in every subject matter area covered by
Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having an associated
wiki page(s). The goal here is to provide a way for implementors to add
comments, annotations, clarifications, corrections etc to augment the RFCs.
Lovely idea, but not something I see as part of the IETF's mission. It is so
these days to set up a web site and wiki page that any editor of an RFC,
of an implementation, can do it if they so choose. Making it part of the IETF
gives it a standing that the resources available to review it would never be
able to put right any but the most egregious mistakes.
Whilst such commentary can often be found on IETF mailing lists after an
RFC is published locating those and searching them can be tedious - plus
the full history of discussion on various points is often not relevant to
an implementor - all they need to know is what is the correct way to do it
Doing something like this would obviously require some investment in
additional infrastructure. There are also questions about how we would
maintain the integrity of the information on the wiki pages, but I think
those are things we can easily address.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list