-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:19 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism
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.
I think given the current mechanism I would just submit such things under
"Editorial".
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.
I was able to type "Appendix A" just now into that section without difficulty.
The preview page shows "Section Appendix A says:", but that hardly seems a
difficulty.
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.
I don't understand the problem here. That report seems pretty clear to me.
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>.;
Typically a working group discusses an erratum when it is raised, and then it
sits in limbo until a document update occurs. Isn't the right place for
discussion about a particular one the mailing list of that working group or, if
it's disbanded, the main IETF 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.
I don't think verified errata have any force or effect until the document is
actually updated, so this really just becomes clutter in the references.
Moreover, if I'm implementing some RFC that references another which itself has
errata, I will want to know about all of them, not the ones that were present
and verified at the time of publication.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf