Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (2966)
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
To: Stéphane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:58:51 -0400
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>

--On Saturday, September 10, 2011 20:05 +0100 Stéphane
Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]> 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