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: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 6:09 PM
> On Tue 07/Aug/2012 15:20:35 +0200 t.p. wrote:
> > From: "Yoav Nir" <[e-mail]>
> >
> >> 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.

Well, start simple and build on it, something the tools team have a
history of doing:-)

First, have only the one highlighted 'corrections made' field on the
html page.

Second, add a new link to a 'corrections help' page telling the viewer
that once issued, a RFC is never changed, that any changes require a
fresh RFC that updates or supersedes the original one (pointing to the
highlighted fields in the top right hand example, perhaps with a worked
example - but not SMTP:-( but that there is an 'erratum' mechanism for
correcting editorial errors or places where the text is or may not be
clear about the intentions of the editors; and that such errata can be
viewed by clicking on the 'corrections made' field.

Finally, change the 'corrections made' to a 'hide corrections/view
corrections' toggle, default the first setting, the second setting
showing OLD/NEW text, old recognisably different eg struck through, with
a link to the RFC Editor page for the erratum; this is only done for
errata that are accepted.  Yes, there would be some intricate errata
that this would not cover, but the screens you get currently by
following the link to the RFC Editor page are so arcane as to switch off
all but those intimately involved in this standards process.

Tom Petch