RE: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs

All three categories are absolutely needed.

It is self evident, although unfortunate,  that the "accepted" category
will be used.
Even after WG, IESG, IETF LC, and the RFC editor, some errors make it
through.

From my experience with RFC errata, the "rejected" category will also
definitely be used.
I have seen some entirely erroneous comments
(for example claiming that pseudocode for packet processing could not be
correct
since the loop over packets never terminates - the proposed fix was to
decrement
the packet size each time and terminate when the packet size reached
zero!),
and some pretty useless rewordings.

Although we can quibble over the nomenclature, the "archived" category
has several uses.
One example is when the erratum submitter was not a WG participant,
and truly could not understand what was intended (at least without the
authors explaining what they meant).
If the RFC is ever obsoleted by a newer one, this will serve as a
reminder to rewrite that passage.
Another example is when the RFC suggests a method to handle an
exception, 
while a simpler method is inherent in the protocol itself.

Y)J(S
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf