Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

Hello all,

I've observed several problems with submission mechanism for RFC 
Errata.  Here they are:
First, we have only two types of errata - Technical or Editorial.  In 
presence of 
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/rfc-metadata-errata.html>, "IESG 
Statement on IESG Processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata", I 
think the third type is necessary - Metadata.
Second, the "Section" field at 
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_report.php> implies that only 
numerical sections will contain something an erratum can be reported 
against (overlooking the GLOBAL option).  However, Appendices, Abstract, 
Index, Author Info, different Notes exist, that aren't covered here.
Third, Original text and Corrected text fields imply that only 
before-and-after errata may be submitted.  However, there might be 
errata like Erratum # 6 
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=6), with an only Report 
text field.  I understand this feature was present in previous versions 
of errata mechanism but removed from the current.
So, taking this into consideration, some specific proposals:

1) Additional Metedata erratum type.  The fields which will be required 
to be filled in are: (a) metadata type: document source, RFC number, 
subseries*, obsoletes header*, updates header*, obsoleted-by header*, 
updated-by header*, category, (b) current value, and (c) correct value.  
Values marked under * in (a) may be available in the case when such 
metainfo is present in the RFC.
2) Replace the "Section" field with the drop-down list containing the 
following options: Section, Appendix, Abstract, Table of Contents, Note, 
Author information, Index.  In the case of the first two an additional 
field for number is available; in the case with Note - type of Note (RFC 
Editor, IESG etc.).
3) Allow user to choose whether they will enter old_text-new_text 
erratum or single_text erratum.
Also, several issues not related to submission mechanism.

1) Specific mailing lists devoted to discussion of errata against RFCs 
from different areas.  I've proposed this on rfc-interest list; see 
rationale at 
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2011-August/002672.html>.;
2) Users might want to submit comments which could be displayable at 
erratum's page, similar to the mechanim employed by some IETF WGs in 
issue trackers.  This also includes ability to add myself to cc list.
3) Verified technical errata may be incorporated in the references.  Eg. 
4 technical errata were reported against RFC 793 and verified; so the 
reference may be:
> Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981.  
> Ammended by RFC Errata Reports 573, 1562, 1564, 1572.
So, further discussion is welcome...

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

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