Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

When I was on the IESG, we had been talking with Heather and Sandy about
what to do about fixing up the whole errata system.   Not sure where that
is now.  It wasn't anyone's top priority at the time.

b


On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:40 PM Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2/7/2017 5:52 PM, Roland Turner wrote:
> > As a passing engineer who doesn't spend that much time spelunking IETF
> > processes, a question that appears to be begged here is why the
> > distinction matters. This is not immediately clear from any of the
> > Status and Type of RFC Errata page
> > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/>, the How to Report
> > Errata page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/>, or the FAQ
> > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/>.
>
> <rant>
>
> In recent years -- and by way of demonstrated some basic process
> problems, I'll note that I have no idea when the current constraints on
> the process were put in place -- the RFC errata process got moved into a
> very specialized place, to the exclusion of a number of useful
> functions.  It's not that what it does do isn't useful, it's that it has
> become idiosyncractic.  And, yeah, it does not appear to me that most
> folk know what it is and is not useful form.
>
> </rant>
>
> d/
>
> --
>
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net
>

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html