IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 08 August 2012 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BBCE21E804C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fkHOPV3sgehQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8242A21E8048 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1344445747; bh=4Gmz5BPOcB3Ixs4mLFjn4MAQyrf8SfcYTDjzRUZjWGo=; l=1106; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=T9ubi5bMvbig+P8HPV+xdg/84zTmii8ZU5K5VkwdK7DjHVWURNNT/UbNSIQzyIZox /2k7dyGBP91RhgNYEcByeZJa2lNWo3IkEkAdm7OMONTdu/w5HPckeYixkns69GqRBF EThwcaxuamrdGf0Pu1914ooJaaMtKzrfY50DvzTs=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:09:07 +0200 id 00000000005DC03F.0000000050229D33.00003A73
Message-ID: <50229D32.8000605@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:09:06 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to
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>
In-Reply-To: <03e701cd749f$73891c40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:09:09 -0000

On Tue 07/Aug/2012 15:20:35 +0200 t.p. wrote:
> From: "Yoav Nir" <ynir@checkpoint.com>
> 
>> Would it make it easier to find if they were called "notes" or
>> "corrections" instead of "errata"?
>
> Yes, corrections is what I see published in a newspaper to correct 
> errata in previous editions.  So far, it is the best word I can
> think of (but there might be a better one:-).

Errata is an abbreviation of "errata corrige", the Latin for "error
correction".  Switching to the English translation would seem to be
consistent with English being the official publication language for RFCs.

> In the html version of an RFC, it would be easy to provide old and new
> in an easy to compare format (as some editors do for I-D), not perhaps
> on permanent display but shown when 'errata' (or whatever name we
> choose) is toggled.

Although easy, doing that would require a noticeable amount of
editorial work.  In addition, notes, reasons, and explanations don't
have an obvious graphical rendition.  IMHO, knowing when and why an
errata was proposed and verified is an integral part of it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email