Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com> Thu, 17 April 2008 19:22 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224203A69B5; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457383A69B5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vgaM4TS3sw6S for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com [207.106.133.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758903A699C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077BE2706; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:22:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (ip72-197-112-82.sd.sd.cox.net [72.197.112.82]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FE12705; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:22:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:22:47 -0700
From: Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <77562088.20080417122247@pobox.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs
In-Reply-To: <D9B03301-594C-4B61-BF38-690AF2C6EDD9@nokia.com>
References: <20080416151659.F075C3A6C0B@core3.amsl.com> <D9B03301-594C-4B61-BF38-690AF2C6EDD9@nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On Thu, 2008-04-17, Bob Hinden wrote: > 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 believe that this is a good way to go. One quibble that I have is with the word "Archived". It merely describes the mechanism to be used. (BTW, I hope that Approved Errata will also be archived!) "Archiving", IMO, implies "saving something valuable". Unfortunately, it doesn't distinguish between items that are of value to be considered in the next update discussion and items that may be of value to current implementors. I would propose that the two classifications be labeled: "Approved" and "Not Yet Approved" with the clear understanding that *both* such types of items will be archived so as to be available to the next document update process. -- Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com> _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for … The IESG
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Pekka Savola
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Jari Arkko
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Paul Hoffman
- RE: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … David Harrington
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … John C Klensin
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Bob Hinden
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Bill McQuillan
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Russ Housley
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Frank Ellermann
- RE: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Yaakov Stein
- Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata … Marshall Eubanks