Re: RFC Errata proposals -- a missing piece

At 6:51 AM -0400 6/2/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>	5. Standards change: When a document has been approved
>	(via Protocol Action Notice or equivalent) that updates
>	or obsoletes an existing Standards Track or BCP
>	document, an erratum entry may be added that points to
>	the action notice and the approved Internet-Draft.  This
>	is intended to be a short-lived entry, providing
>	information to the community for important cases during
>	the period between IESG approval and publication of the
>	new RFC.  These notices are intended to exceptional
>	circumstances and will be added at the discretion of the
>	RFC Editor (e.g., in circumstances when it appears that
>	RFC publication of the new document will be delayed) or
>	at the request of the IESG or a relevant Area Director.

The idea that updates appear in the Errata database is a good one. As 
to your proposal: why make it temporary? In normal publishing, errata 
are for corrections of errors *and other changes*. Clearly, an update 
to an RFC is a change worth noting forever.

Right now, someone who wants to know what has changed in an RFC has 
to read the errata list *and* look at some view of the the RFC 
database to determine if the RFC has been updated, obsoleted, made 
historic, and so on. Having that notation in the errata list will 
help more readers, and hurt no one.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf