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

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

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 |