Re: [Errata-design] An example of an erratum that takes time for little value

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 13/01/15 22:24, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> While we're waiting for everyone to respond to the Doodle poll
> (*hint* https://doodle.com/925i53egnm5957i2 *hint*), an example
> recently came up for discussion of an errata that is not helping
> the world be a better place.
> 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4230
> 

That's one kind of useless-time-sink. I've found the worst ones
are like [1] where there's a technical change that's not obviously
an erratum (or not) for a protocol nobody cares about and where
there's no WG or accessible source of an authoritative answer
as to whether the change suggested is good or not. And of course
nobody except possibly (only possibly!) the busy-body who posted
the thing cares anyway.

   [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3811

> I suggest that a measure of a successful errata system will be one 
> visually and through metadata differentiate between levels of
> usefulness for an implementer/reader.

Yep.

> The vote system could be of use here (though the irony of even
> thinking "vote" and "IETF" in the same context tweaks my brain).

Think of it as modding up/down and not voting, or as like/dislike.
But yeah, let's not call it voting. (On the sound technical basis
that there is no register of electors. I'm sure Pete will have a
principle that we can use here:-)

> Any alternative opinions to whether that measure is reasonable?

Yes. If it's done so that almost anyone can do the modding up/down.
I'd be fine with a requirement for an IETF tracker or tools a/c
to be allowed hit that button. We don't have to create new RFC
editor accounts IMO as we don't really care who is modding up/down,
we just want some not-quite-trivial anti-spam and multiple-voting.

And I'm also fine that we leave all that vulnerable to Sybil
attacks.

S.

> 
> -Heather
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Errata-design
> mailing list Errata-design@rfc-editor.org 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/errata-design
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUtZ+NAAoJEC88hzaAX42ila4H/Rn+sVlle4TOZyQ7JSHoeIDr
gFFSt08rac7pp3fdNbkBDQaszHZe8vIAqBk+NoCR96S9P5KNWnUezJ+JBoYOvPLG
kMjbchJU0T1WS59hrGALEjNa9oWqs2sDxUx3u7gPMdNGcllKqgYvQAF+FySKLNur
x1axZxG4lTibmWvUb3rQVqUrlBiYYegxb8w7VmeW1snPEAvayZCR1RONDzbvyE2/
mh+Ml164+lDSIbVL5HH8kc6RMckdKVLhf0n/51QKQTB434XN4LJihXPiOxDpD3n0
SVdQBWTxHmVcy9Ub818wWbL5jnlQTabzsLaa/ecxKfCqBMgBah4gZ7XS6A6vvZY=
=XPPf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----