On 19/07/16 16:28, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,
A couple of initial comments:
Q1:
In section3, the text says:
"- Providing feedback on correctness and pointing out errors. This
is a much easier process than submitting errata, and as such would
likely yield a larger number of corrections."
I assume that, if something is to be fixed, an errata will eventually have to
be created? I.e. the annotation will not be a formal correction.
I fully agree. Annotations are not curated by anybody. To make a formal
change, you still need to follow the Errata process.
Q2:
Keep in mind that some text in an RFC may not be valid anymore, if:
1) It has already been changed in an errata; or
2) It has been updated in another RFC ("this RFC updates section X of RFC
Y")
Now, anyone who is about to give comments should obviously make sure whether
the affected parts have been updated. But, assuming I want to comment on text
that exists in an errata, how does that work?
IMO we should ignore this issue for the initial experiment. Later on, we
can think of ways to tie errata back into the original document (e.g.
similar to "revision marks" in Word). Which would make it possible to
annotate the latest version of the text. But that would be a much more
extensive and complex change.
Thanks,
Yaron
Regards,
Christer
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer
Sent: 19 July 2016 14:54
To: IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]
Once an RFC is published, there is essentially no way for readers to provide
feedback: what works, what are the implementation pitfalls, how does the
document relate to other technologies or even to other RFCs.
We IETF insiders usually know what is the relevant working group, and can take our
feedback there. Non-insiders though don't have any contact point, and so will most likely
keep their feedback to themselves. These non-IETFers are the target audience of our
documents! Unfortunately, our so-called "Requests for Comments" are anything
but an invitation to submit comments.
There is a number of tools now that allow "web annotations" (i.e.,
comments) on various published documents. I submitted a draft [1] recently that proposes
to enable annotations on the "tools" version of our RFCs. Technically, this is
a trivial change. From a process point of view it is more complicated and merits
discussion on this list. Sec. 6 of the draft allows you to see for yourself what such
annotations would look like.
I am here in Berlin if people prefer to talk it over in person.
Otherwise, please reply on this list.
Thanks,
Yaron
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations-00