Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

Stripping out a raft of cc:s, a nit and a comment in line.

On Apr 16, 2008, at 11:16 AM, The IESG wrote:

> 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

I would suggest

s/modified/modify/

>
>       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.

I don't know about this - strip out the "or" clause and you get

Changes that ... are of major importance, should be Rejected.

Are you intending to say that only unimportant errata will be accepted ?

Regards
Marshall

>
>
>   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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf