Re: [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch and updates to RFC 5261

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

Erik

Errata have a process and it works:-)

You posted errata against RFC5261, an RFC which was produced by simple.
Therefore notification of the errata went to the simple WG mailing list
which was shut down two days ago so your good work has found a very
effective black hole.

How about forwarding the messages that the RFC-Editor produced to the
apps-discuss list, for further discussion?

Normally, the AD picks up an erratum and runs with it but since the WG
has shut down, doubtless the ADs have as well, so you will need to find
a friendly AD elsewhere, or you might want to start with a friendly WG
chair.  As you are doubtless aware, there will soon be an IETF meeting
in Orlando, so chairs and ADs are rather busy right now.  If you plan to
be there, you could even ask the chairs for a slot on the agenda.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Wilde" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:17 PM
Subject: draft-wilde-xml-patch and updates to RFC 5261


> hello tom.
>
> On 2013-02-26 16:16 , t.petch wrote:
> >> the errata are still just in the "reported" state,
> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5261 lists the 4 i
have
> >> submitted. 3 of those now are actually part of the updates to RFC
5261
> >> in the draft, so i am wondering whether these errata are needed
anymore?
> >> ideally, my draft would update RFC 5261, and then the errata would
be
> >> redundant, right?
> > Yes, the errata would be redundant but my instinct would still be to
go
> > forward with them.  They are simple, tightly defined, and so easier
to
> > discuss than a whole I-D (even if yours is pleasantly short).  You
would
> > get a clearer outcome from a discussion of an erratum than from an
I-D.
>
> the issue with the errata is that there doesn't seem to be a process
> around them. i have submitted them, and now they are just sitting
there
> in "reported" state. i'd rather encourage people to look at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch#appendix-A and then
we
> can have a discussion and maybe updated versions of the draft. this
way
> there's a process for how to fix the most pressing issues with RFC
5261.
> but one way or the other, feedback so far has been minimal.
>
> thanks and cheers,
>
> dret.
>
> --
> erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail]  -  tel:[phone] |
>             | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
>             | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
>