At 3:24 PM +0100 1/18/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
3.15. Post Publication Corrections
We need to say something about technical vetting of errata. They
can't just be published without checking them.
Fully agree. I recently had an issue where a disgruntled WG member
who wasn't getting his way actually said "OK, I'll just get this as
an errata after the RFC is published".
Is this a task for the publisher? Does the publisher need IETF support
for this?
It depends on whether or not you want the publisher to do technical
evaluation work, or whether they really are a publisher. If we follow
Brian's suggestion for a independent review board (IRB) and take the
independent submission vetting out of the hands of the publisher,
then the IRB could also vet any non-editorial errata as well. That
seems like a clear separation of duties that would make it clearer
what the published does and does not do. In the past few years, the
number of non-editorial errata is quite small, so this should not add
much work to the ERB.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
