> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:05 PM > To: ietf@ietf.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@ietf.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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf