[CCAMP] What is an Erratum?

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 02 August 2012 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFA211E814B for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.266
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E4xf8vi6PoFg for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5FAC11E814E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain []) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q72L8Mbf012920 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:08:22 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-11f1.meeting.ietf.org []) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q72L8FWm012888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:08:21 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:08:14 +0100
Message-ID: <01d101cd70f2$f2959be0$d7c0d3a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac1w8rAv+6e8rpIvRn6nPAgrl9BHCw==
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: [CCAMP] What is an Erratum?
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:08:25 -0000


<AD hat on, and trying to keep clear of my views on the details of the RFC 4872

There seems to be some doubt about what to use an Erratum for.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/status_type_desc.html shows the two types of Erratum:

Technical: Error in the technical content (Note that changes in the usage of RFC
2119 keywords are considered technical.)

Editorial: A spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not
affect the technical meaning.

IMHO the issue for RFC 4872 does not fall into either category. You have some
proposed additional / revised text that you believe would make the document
easier to understand, but which (if captured correctly) would not change the
technical meaning. That is not an Editorial Erratum. We fix this type of error
by capturing the understanding on the mailing list, or by writing an
Informational RFC that adds an explanation.

OTOH, if the belief is that there is an error in the technical content of the
document such that the proposed change will change the technical consequences of
the document, then this also does not feel into either category since it is not
a documentation error, but a content error. We fix this type of error by writing
an Update or by rev'ing the RFC.

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html gives further
guidelines about how the IESG will treat errata that it receives.

Lastly, you might want to catch up with the thread "RFC Errata: when to file,
and when not to" on the IETF Discussion list. The observation there is that the
Errata System is not a place to raise tickets for things to be included in
future revisions. Your working group has access to a trouble ticket system for
that type of thing.