ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC Errata proposals -- a missing piece

2008-06-02 09:42:02


--On Monday, 02 June, 2008 08:40 -0700 SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
wrote:

Hi John,
At 03:51 02-06-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
I suggest that it would be useful to add an additional
explicit state category to the the RFC Editor's list, one
that would presumably be handed out of band (although I'd
have no objection to having it automated).   The description
would read something like the following:

        5. Standards change: When a document has been approved
        (via Protocol Action Notice or equivalent) that
        updates or obsoletes an existing Standards Track or
        BCP document, an erratum entry may be added that
        points to the action notice and the approved
        Internet-Draft.  This is intended to be a short-lived
        entry, providing information to the community for
        important cases during the period between IESG
        approval and publication of the new RFC.  These
        notices are intended to exceptional circumstances and
        will be added at the discretion of the RFC Editor
        (e.g., in circumstances when it appears that RFC
        publication of the new document will be delayed) or
        at the request of the IESG or a relevant Area
        Director.

I suggest a minor change to the last sentence to emphasize the
exceptional circumstances.  Instead of "These notices ...":

   This state is intended for exceptional circumstances.  The
erratum entry will be
   added at the discretion of the RFC Editor (e.g., in
circumstances when it appears
   that  RFC publication of the new document will be delayed)
or at the request of the
   IESG or a relevant Area Director.

I have no strong preference.  The advantage of treating it as
"exceptional circumstances" is that it would not impose any
workload on the more normal cases in which getting word about
the change out was non-critical.    On the other hand, were it
not for whatever marginal resources that might be needed, having
a forward pointer in errata any time a document or major part of
it was about to be superceded  would certainly not be harmful.

   john

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf