On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, The IESG wrote: > o Rejected - The errata is in error, or proposes a change to the RFC > that is clearly inappropriate to do with an errata. In the latter > case, if the change is to be considered for future updates of the > document, it should be proposed using other channels than errata, > such as a WG mailing list. > > o Archived - The errata is not a necessary update to the RFC. > However, any future update of the document should consider this > errata, and determine whether it is correct and merits including > in the update. ...
One of the guidelines says: > 8. Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing > an IANA registration procedure, to something that might be > different from the intended consensus when the document was > approved should be Archived. I do not understand an errata that suggests changing the defined process should be Archived. Shouldn't this be flat out Rejected? The problem I see with this proposed errata process is that "Archived" tries to fill the gap for the need of an issue tracker for substantial change suggestions (today these are sent to a subset of authors, WG chairs, and/or WG mailing list if active, but are rarely tracked systematically). I don't think the errata process should be used to track substantial change proposals. That procedure needs to be separate from the errata process, and it the best place for it would probably be at @ietf.org. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
