Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (2966)

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 9/10/11 4:58 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, September 10, 2011 20:05 +0100 Stéphane
> Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>>> post-publication nit-picking on RFCs.
>>
>> I would say otherwise: such an errata is of small importance,
>> in the grand scheme of things, but, should a 6365bis appear
>> one day, it is a good idea if such problems are stored
>> somewhere for the future revision. What is wrong with using
>> the errata database as a bug-tracking system? And what is the
>> actual cost of storing one bug in this database?
> 
> Stéphane,
> 
> First, my apologies for overreacting somewhat.  Bad week.
> 
> Beyond that, there are two answers to your question.  The first
> is that, while it is probably inevitable that something will
> slip through every once in a while, the amount of nit-picking
> that goes on with a document like this while it is passing
> through the approval stages makes it extremely frustrating that
> something of more significance than many of the things that were
> caught slips through nonetheless. 

General errata processing issues aside, the proper processing of *this*
erratum seems to be "hold for document update"...

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/