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

Russ and the IESG,

I generally support this proposal.  However, I think you have made it  
too complex.  Specifically, you have three states, where I think only  
two are required.

>   o  Approved - The errata is appropriate under the criteria below and
>      should be available to implementors or people deploying the RFC.
>
>   o  Rejected - The errata is in error, or proposes a change to the  
> RFC
>      that is clearly inappropriate to do with an errata.  In the  
> latter
>      case, if the change is to be considered for future updates of the
>      document, it should be proposed using other channels than errata,
>      such as a WG mailing list.
>
>   o  Archived - The errata is not a necessary update to the RFC.
>      However, any future update of the document should consider this
>      errata, and determine whether it is correct and merits including
>      in the update.

I think that only "Approved" and "Archived" are required.

Approved is correctly for implementors to correct problems in the  
specification.

Everything else is for a working group to consider when the RFC is  
revised.  I see no value in making any distinction between proposed  
Errata if they are not Approved.  It will be for the working group to  
decide.  A working may decide to include changes to the protocol that  
would have been labeled as Rejected.  It seems harmful to give what  
might well be good, but non-interoperable, changes a negative label.   
A working group considering a revision can clearly sort out the good  
and bad suggestions, just as they do to ideas presented to the working  
group at a meeting or on the mailing list.  In essence, everything in  
the Archived queue, can be considered as input to the working group.

Keeping it to two states should also make it easier for the IESG to  
process the proposed Errata in a timely fashion.  I can imagine long  
debates on the differences between Reject and Archived.  As you say in  
the guidelines "Deciding between these two depends on judgment".  The  
is little to be gained by making this distinction.

Bob

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf