IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Wed, 16 April 2008 17:11 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 D5D493A6F9D; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:11:02 -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 87A9F28C1FF; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:11:00 -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=[AWL=-0.000, 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 MBpQ0A0cPuN3; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jackfruit.srv.cs.cmu.edu (JACKFRUIT.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.201.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C988B28C4A5; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU (SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.209.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by jackfruit.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m3GHBQwV002948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:11:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:11:26 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs
Message-ID: <15DF6ADF1AA8AE0496765BFF@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20080416151659.F075C3A6C0B@core3.amsl.com>
References: <20080416151659.F075C3A6C0B@core3.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: iaoc@ietf.org, iab@iab.org, jhutz@cmu.edu, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
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

I support adoption of these proposed guidelines, but have a couple of minor 
comments...


>    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.

If the document was produced by a WG that is not closed, the report should 
be copied to the WG chairs as well.

>    5.  Ugly typos that are clearly bogus typos but would not cause any
>        confusions to implementation or deployments should be Archived.

The intent here is reasonable, but IMHO it's kind of poorly expressed.
I'd suggest "Clear typographical errors which would not cause...".




-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email