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

[t.p. <[e-mail]>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Alessandro Vesely" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 4:19 PM
On Thu 02/Aug/2012 03:28:38 -0700 Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>
>> In particular, the errata system is NOT meant to be used as an issue
>> tracker;
>
> Of course we have mailing lists, issue trackers, and wikis, but the
> problem is that none of them are for RFCs.

In addition, those tools seem to be intended rather for IETF internal
use than for general public.

> The question then comes up on whether we can do better. And my guess
> is that in this day and age of linked information, we should be able
> to do better. With the tools version of an RFC, which is quickly
> becoming the preferred version of many, it's already easy to find
errata.

It is /not difficult/ to find errata.  "Easy" would mean that people
usually find them even if they're not purposely looking for them.  For
example, the existence of an approved errata could be signaled by
coloring the margin near the relevant text.

<tp>
When I Google RFCnnnn, I am sometimes directed to www.ietf.org, which is
not much help here. Other times, I am directed to tools.ietf.org, whose
format I find less friendly but which does have 'errata exist' in the
top right hand corner.  However, I cannot click on that, unlike the
Obsoletes and Updates fields; but, more importantly, would your average
not-involved-in-standards audience know what errata are?  For me, the
word comes from a classical education, before ever I got involved with
standards, and so is a commonplace, but is it used in the world at
large?  I suspect not.

Tom Petch
</tp>