Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I'd like to make one small comment with respect to the opinion that 
maintaining an errata list (and potentially handing that to the RFC 
Editor) would be sufficient.

1) Scott Lawrence' original errata list 
(<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata> is excellent, but it hasn't been 
maintained since 2004. So we needed to move somewhere else.

2) Just collecting errata sounds nice in theory, but my experience with 
spec writing is that you can't close a bug until you have applied the 
suggested fix to the spec text. Frequently, something that looks OK in 
isolation doesn't work in the specification context. Thus my preference 
is not only to collect errata and proposed resolutions, but to also have 
them applied to a copy of the original spec (and have that up for review 
for everybody).

3) Finally, looking at the amount of issues we have collected in the 
meantime, I'd be really amazed if the RFC Editor would be willing to 
take over the editorial work for updating the document. I bet the answer 
would be: please submit an Internet Draft.

Best regards, Julian