Re: [Errata-design] sanity notwithstanding...

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 12/23/14 1:04 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> The part I want to go away is that each posted erratum consumes
> effort for folks other than the poster. (Incl. me:-)

A slight addendum to this, with which Stephen may agree or disagree:

I don't want errata to consume time and effort for folks other than 
those who want to spend time and effort on it (including the poster).

That is:

- I don't care about pure typographical errors. I'm pretty sure Stephen 
doesn't either. But maybe Heather does and wants to exert effort on 
them. Maybe she wants to verify them and post official ones of which she 
approves. Peachy. I don't care to know.

- I like suggestions for changes to specs. They should be tracked, 
posted publicly, and discussed by those who are interested in that spec. 
But they shouldn't have to be marked as "Formally Approved By The Powers 
That Be", and I shouldn't need to spend my time looking at them unless 
I'm interested too.

- If there's an overt error in a spec that causes implementation and/or 
interoperability problems, *and it's non-obvious*, those should be 
called out with red flags and fanfare in some well-known place that 
people know to go to for such important information, and someone in a 
position of responsibility should mark it as such.

My sense is that part of the problem is that we've got once system to 
deal with the above, so we all end up spending time and effort on all 
three of the above. That's not good. The IESG (or chairs or whoever) 
*should* be stuck with spending time or effort on the third, but not on 
the first two. Maybe the RFC Editor should spend time or effort on the 
first, but the getting the IESG involved is highly silly. If we dealt 
with these things separately, I think overall happiness would be 
increased substantially.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]