Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (2966)

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* John C Klensin wrote:
>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.

Could you explain where you got this impression from? The E-Mail that
started this thread says "Editorial Errata Reported" in the Subject,
and editorial issues typically do not require broad discussion or ur-
gent action, and there does not seem much else to suggest it does. So
I would think this field already exists. As for copying people, well,
I would think most of the people in question are used to dealing with
high volume email traffic with mails varying greatly in importance. I
am not saying the user interface for this can't be improved, but I do
not see the problem you have with it.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/