Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs
The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Wed, 16 April 2008 16:07 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 EEECC28C16E; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id F075C3A6C0B; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
From: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs
Message-Id: <20080416151659.F075C3A6C0B@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:16:59 -0700
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:07:41 -0700
Cc: iaoc@ietf.org, iab@iab.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
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
The IESG is considering the following statement to guide the handling of RFC Errata for IETF Stream RFCs. Your review and comment on this policy is encouraged. Russ Housley on Behalf of the IESG - - - - - - - - - - - - Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs These are strong guidelines and not immutable rules. Common sense and good judgment should be used by the IESG to decide what is the right thing to do. Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be used to change what the community meant when it approved the RFC. These guidelines only apply to errata on RFCs in the IETF stream. They apply to new errata and not errata that had already been approved. After an erratum is reported, a report will be sent to the authors and Area Directors (ADs) of the WG in which it originated. If the WG has closed or the document was not associated with a WG, then the report will be sent to the ADs for the Area most closely associated to the subject matter. The ADs for the area will review it, either themselves or by delegating, and classify it as falling under one of the following states: o Approved - The errata is appropriate under the criteria below and should be available to implementors or people deploying the RFC. o Rejected - The errata is in error, or proposes a change to the RFC that is clearly inappropriate to do with an errata. In the latter case, if the change is to be considered for future updates of the document, it should be proposed using other channels than errata, such as a WG mailing list. o Archived - The errata is not a necessary update to the RFC. However, any future update of the document should consider this errata, and determine whether it is correct and merits including in the update. Guidelines for review are: 1. Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems or significant confusion should be Approved. 2. Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an implementation or deployment problem should be Archived. 3. Errata on obsolete RFCs should treated the same as errata on non-obsolete RFC where there is strong evidence that some people are still making use of the related technology. 4. Trivial grammar corrections should be Archived. 5. Ugly typos that are clearly bogus typos but would not cause any confusions to implementation or deployments should be Archived. 6. Changes which are simply stylistic issues or simply make things read better should be Archived. 7. Changes that modified the working of a protocol to something that might be different from the intended consensus when the document was approved should be either Archived or Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment. Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus, or are of major importance, should be Rejected. In unclear situations, small changes can be Archived. 8. Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an IANA registration procedure, to something that might be different from the intended consensus when the document was approved should be Archived. _______________________________________________ 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