-----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 9:05 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism
I think given the current mechanism I would just submit such things
under "Editorial".
This is an option; but doing so makes work of RFC Editor when
incorporating metadata errata harder. If we have such thing as Metadata
erratum type, and if such erratum gets verified, RFC Editor will be
capable of noticing and acting quickly (I doubt RFC Editor pays much
attention to Editorial errata when submitted/verified).
I'm sure the RFC Editor appreciates people in the IETF trying to make their
work easier, but since so far they haven't complained about this in particular,
I'm not sure it's something that actually needs fixing.
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.
This limitation makes submitters find the way to put what they want in
this field whose entity, I think, should be limited to digits and ".".
This issue is probably of aesthetic importance.
As a submitter, I didn't find typing "Appendix A" into that box and decoding
the output to be at all inconvenient. It may not be perfect, but it's not
terribly broken either.
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?
Well, there are AD-sponsored Individual Submissions, which have no
associated WG, and IAB, IRTF and Independent docs which IETF community
might have a limited interest in. If we had the lists where errata
for:
[...]
I still don't see this as evidence that we need to have a forum specifically
for discussing errata. I would have to subscribe to that list just in case
there's ever any erratum opened for an RFC that interests me, and deal with the
(possibly huge) amount of traffic that is not of interest. It seems to me that
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org is just fine for this purpose, and most of us already
are on that one.
I also haven't seen any demand prior to this for a special forum where errata
are discussed, separate from the list(s) we already have.
Discussing errata on IETF Discussion list will increase our traffic and
will soon bore many people who aren't particularly interested in a
variety of topics errata are submitted on.
As far as I can tell, that's where this happens now, and I don't see it being
much of a burden.
I could be wrong, but I don't see much evidence that any of this stuff is
broken enough to warrant a bunch of form changes, new mailing lists, or other
new infrastructure. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf