Re: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

2011-08-31 Thread Mykyta Yevstifeyev 

31.08.2011 10:42, Julian Reschke wrote:

On 2011-08-31 06:05, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

...
Well, a reasonable argument. At Appendix A of
draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02#appendix-A) 


I found a proposal from Brian Carpenter to point to errata list in the
RFC itself, probably in Status of this Memo section. So this may be a
solution.
...


"Status of this Memo" already has a link to 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc.


Yes, this slipped my mind.  Thanks.

Mykyta



Best regards, Julian



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

2011-08-31 Thread Mykyta Yevstifeyev 

31.08.2011 8:09, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

-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.


Usually, when metadata erratum is reported, and some AD verifies it, 
this AD is to report this change to RFC Editor manually, despite the 
fact the verification notification is cc'ed to 
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; also note that processing such errata may 
take additional time because the whole IESG may be necessary to be 
consulted, and so on.  At least one step of this process may be 
simplified simply.





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.


So this, as already mentioned, is an aesthetic question.  However, 
"Section TOC" or "Section Appendix A" don't look nice.





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 didn't see, for instance, any errata report against apps-related RFCs 
coming to apps-discuss list.  This would only happen if such RFC was 
produced is appsawg WG.  I didn't notice errata reports on genarea RFCs 
coming on IETF Discussion list, which would be logical.  There may be 
more examples.


Else, errata system should be configured to copy all notifications to 
specific area lists, which exists in all areas, which it currently isn't.




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.


Have we ever seen any errata coming on IETF Discussion?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev



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



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

2011-08-31 Thread Julian Reschke 

On 2011-08-31 06:05, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

...
Well, a reasonable argument. At Appendix A of
draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02#appendix-A)
I found a proposal from Brian Carpenter to point to errata list in the
RFC itself, probably in Status of this Memo section. So this may be a
solution.
...


"Status of this Memo" already has a link to 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc.


Best regards, Julian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

2011-08-30 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy 
> -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

Re: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

2011-08-30 Thread Mykyta Yevstifeyev 

30.08.2011 22:09, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.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
, "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".


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).





Second, the "Section" field at
  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.


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.





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.


There used to be a "Text Report" option for submitting errata.  This 
implied filling in the only field, not "Current Text" and "Corrected 
Text".  Now it is unavailable, and this makes submitters write smth like 
this:


"Scope: GLOBAL"; "Current text: N/A"; "Corrected text: to say>"


and this results in a report saying that

"Throughout the document, when it says N/A, it should say submitter wanted to say>".


If the one-field errata existed, this would be:

"Scope: "; "Report Text: "

and the erratum will look like:

"[For this document] the following erratum was reported: wanted to say>".


(The scope-indicating field when submitting such errata should be made 
optional, BTW.)





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
.;

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:


1. IETF Stream:
a. Apps Area;
b. Int Area;
c. Gen Area;
d. Ops Area;
e. RAI Area;
f. Rtg area;
g. Sec Area;
h. Tsv-Area
i. Legacy (published bu concluded areas);
j. Individual Submissions;
2. IAB Stream;
3. IRTF Stream;
4. Independent Submissions

folks who don't have ability or willing to join corresponding groups' 
lists will be capable of joining these lists.


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.





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.


Well, a reasonable argument.  At Appendix A of 
draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02#appendix-A) 
I found a proposal from Brian Carpenter to point to errata list in the 
RFC itself, prob

RE: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

2011-08-30 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy 
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.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
> , "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
>  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
>  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@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

2011-08-30 Thread Wesley Eddy 

On 8/30/2011 11:19 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

Hello all,

I've observed several problems with submission mechanism for RFC Errata.
Here they are:

First, we have only two types of errata - Technical or Editorial. In
presence of
, "IESG
Statement on IESG Processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata", I
think the third type is necessary - Metadata.




I agree with this part of the proposal, at least.


--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf