Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 09 August 2012 12:34 UTC

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:34:12 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Subject: Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to
Message-ID: <E3A4486529AAE3D8CD2A0098@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <EA2F8447-D700-4E22-85A6-30BAD12DF3E6@checkpoint.com>
References: <CALaySJKV96tdXhzfPD1e1Mro_+gp5aDarF7Z06QrA+iQtnHkLw@mail.gmail.com> <501A5656.2050407@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <501BEC0D.1060404@tana.it> <009101cd7476$bb522c20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <599B1629-543A-49BC-A0E7-FA2096C538AD@checkpoint.com> <03e701cd749f$73891c40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <50229D32.8000605@tana.it> <006701cd7606$17ff48a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAKHUCzzsf6veDR+uwxnMw4Koh0Kj7FqoQpsUbENMb_r3v0G89A@mail.gmail.com> <5256BF9BC9AE13013F066C4E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAKHUCzza0ba9eDsEHF+y_icmeWTB8Y=3vb3zw83dGi+4-uh77Q@mail.gmail.com> <EA2F8447-D700-4E22-85A6-30BAD12DF3E6@checkpoint.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Precedence: list

--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 14:53 +0300 Yoav Nir
<ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:

> 
> This means that there would be two documents with the same RFC
> number. The quasi-leagal "as published" one, and the one of
> the tools site. Which should I follow when I go to implement?

Exactly

> If the errors amount to something that would really make a
> difference in implementation, you really need a new RFC, and
> can't handle this in an erratum.
> 
> See for example RFC 4753. The erratum changed bits on the
> wire, so a replacement RFC (5903) had to be published.

And, if I correctly understood it at the time, that is exactly
why the RFC Editor opposed the idea of formal errata for years.
If there were real, substantive, errors, a replacement RFC
should be published as soon as practical.  For anything else,
the most that was desirable would be a collected list of
comments and suggestions that could be considered if/when the
document was revised.

   john

RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Barry Leiba
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Abdussalam Baryun
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Martin J. Dürst
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Barry Leiba
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Alessandro Vesely
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Barry Leiba
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Alessandro Vesely
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to t.p.
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Yoav Nir
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to t.p.
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Alessandro Vesely
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to t.p.
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Dave Cridland
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to John C Klensin
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Dave Cridland
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Yoav Nir
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to John C Klensin
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Yoav Nir
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to John C Klensin
RE: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Worley, Dale R (Dale)
Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to Stephan Wenger