Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (2966)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 10 September 2011 22:57 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 8757C21F850E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 gTgp2JaZU7pw for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA64821F8509 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1R2WVh-000FsX-Eb; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:58:53 -0400
X-Vipre-Scanned: 00245499002894002455E6-TDI
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:58:51 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Stéphane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer+rfc@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <2A0F6A6C7A60F7292A0A104C@[192.168.1.128]>
In-Reply-To: <20110910190557.GA13739@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <20110910083446.7D45098C251@rfc-editor.org> <8FDDE9E59CF60C43C95F3951@PST.JCK.COM> <20110910190557.GA13739@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, presnick@qualcomm.com, barryleiba@computer.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.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 22:57:12 -0000
--On Saturday, September 10, 2011 20:05 +0100 Stéphane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer+rfc@nic.fr> 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. The second is that, unfortunately from my point of view, the errata system has evolved rather quickly from just what you describe -- at least in large measure a lightweight system for recording minor issues that it would be desirable to check if the document is ever revised -- to a rather heavyweight one in which a half-dozen people and a WG mailing list get involved and a multi-step approval process is needed. Perhaps if the system permitted someone who found a problem that "is of small importance, ... it is a good idea if such problems are stored somewhere for the future revision" to say that when the erratum is submitted --perhaps by checking a "recommend moving this immediately to 'hold for future revision' box" and _not_ copy all present and past ADs and a WG as well as the authors, the RFC Editor could assign that category in the absence of someone deciding to take it up for more serious discussion. That would certainly have been reasonable (and appreciated, at least by me) for this report; the problem if any, lies in the implicit request for a broader discussion and relatively immediate action, if only to classify it that way in the end. best, john
- 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