Russ and the IESG,
I generally support this proposal. However, I think you have made it
too complex. Specifically, you have three states, where I think only
two are required.
o Approved - The errata is appropriate under the criteria below and
should be available to implementors or people deploying the RFC.
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.
I think that only "Approved" and "Archived" are required.
Approved is correctly for implementors to correct problems in the
specification.
Everything else is for a working group to consider when the RFC is
revised. I see no value in making any distinction between proposed
Errata if they are not Approved. It will be for the working group to
decide. A working may decide to include changes to the protocol that
would have been labeled as Rejected. It seems harmful to give what
might well be good, but non-interoperable, changes a negative label.
A working group considering a revision can clearly sort out the good
and bad suggestions, just as they do to ideas presented to the working
group at a meeting or on the mailing list. In essence, everything in
the Archived queue, can be considered as input to the working group.
Keeping it to two states should also make it easier for the IESG to
process the proposed Errata in a timely fashion. I can imagine long
debates on the differences between Reject and Archived. As you say in
the guidelines "Deciding between these two depends on judgment". The
is little to be gained by making this distinction.
Bob
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf