Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (2966)
Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Sat, 10 September 2011 23:35 UTC
Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD8921F89BA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.656
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_29=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LxtGINM30kYc for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0C421F899D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6so975828ywa.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/SgA4QoMgv/6Zk2acGvt3rfaeokfuu20cP8OssKdFfs=; b=EnI7BFkRE7iYTFvEUn3K9+Avpkz8YTsWwzDl+fSaTsK1iwp1kONTRtOQ50xElakVXe boL1xFuWtivVZGLjV7XgYZNpP5SA1RSw2VlirfVW9sdsSvJCq391nKlbj2WXeoICRhG1 72YOTi72IFyopfY5fGnWeoN4dbUN9XYOZQ9Lo=
Received: by 10.68.0.104 with SMTP id 8mr1876292pbd.381.1315697850138; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.101.15 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8FDDE9E59CF60C43C95F3951@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <20110910083446.7D45098C251@rfc-editor.org> <8FDDE9E59CF60C43C95F3951@PST.JCK.COM>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:36:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybpw36MXJJaNA+-EZLUmXgWuxd7WRgkWr0F6RbLci+YJOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (2966)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:35:32 -0000
On 10 September 2011 13:20, John C Klensin wrote: > <rant> [...] > there are extensive opportunities to suggest small > corrections during pre-approval review It happens for obvious reasons; folks look at a draft or RFC again when it somehow triggers their attention. That is how I ended up to report the earth-shattering fact that the MD4-obsolete RFC has the MD2-obsolete page headers (or vice versa) on the day of its publication, when I updated the relevant MD2+MD4+MD5 en:Wikipedia articles. IOW, I did not see this minor nit before; and actually I don't care about MD2+MD4. But it would be stupid to update only the MD5 article when you know that there are similar RFCs for MD2+MD4. <counter-rant> There are also authors, notably you, who hate to discuss editorial nits outside of AUTH48. </counter-rant> Recently the same pattern had a similar effect, I saw an oddity in a "no-spam-report" draft only *because* it is now in PubReq. I didn't see it at a better time (= WG LC). My interest in that WG is not related to the perfectly harmless "no-spam report" draft, and you cannot expect me to find minor nits at a better time: Mostly I stumble over nits, and the timing can be bad. > I believe the errata process would be considerably > improved by imposing a non-trivial administrative fee > for a filing, especially a filing within a few weeks > of RFC publication. Refundable for verified errata, the IETF trust has to cough up the costs caused by publishing erroneous RFCs in their stream. "Held for document update" slowly degrades into "I don't like to check what this really is", therefore it should be handled as "verified" wrt the errata fee. To avoid the fee posting an I-D with biannual renewals would suffice. Insert "</joke>" at the place where it belongs. > </rant> Many editorial errata are editorial nits, and this has to be fixed years later in a xxxx-bis document. It is perfectly okay to document the fact in a public erratum. It is also good for readers stumbling over the same issue, when they find that this was already reported, and ideally verified. (Or rejected, if the alleged editorial nit turns out to be intentional, and a "fix" would be a mistake.) Some editorial errata are disguised technical errata, I click on "editorial" whenever possible, reserving "technical" for "this is really wrong, and that it is wrong is not obvious". I very much appreciate the work of A. Hönes, the RFC errata system is a very important part of the RFCs. It is not at all a waste of my time. Of course I can see your point as author, but all it takes is an ACK or a NAK. You should be also able to "opt-out" from the errata process if you don't like it. After all it's the responsibility of the IETF to care about its published RFCs. > While "Jawi" is, indeed, usually preferred, we've > been informed by Malaysian sources that "Jawa" is > often used interchangeably. Okay, simply put that as reason in a NAK. I couldn't care less about "Jawi vs. Jawa", but I certainly care about the RFC errata process. -Frank
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… John C Klensin
- [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC636… RFC Errata System
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Bill McQuillan
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Stéphane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Peter Saint-Andre