Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Thu, 17 April 2008 06:04 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 5782B3A6DDE; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:04:33 -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 E3EF43A6AFD; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:04:31 -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 zp77JOWnvYri; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netcore.fi (eunet-gw.ipv6.netcore.fi [IPv6:2001:670:86:3001::1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D6928C4C9; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m3H64ufa010504; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:04:56 +0300
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id m3H64tcT010500; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:04:55 +0300
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:04:55 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement Regarding RFC Errata for IETF Sream RFCs
In-Reply-To: <20080416151659.F075C3A6C0B@core3.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0804170856150.9808@netcore.fi>
References: <20080416151659.F075C3A6C0B@core3.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LRH 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/6807/Thu Apr 17 01:25:48 2008 on otso.netcore.fi
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: iaoc@ietf.org, iab@iab.org, 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
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, The IESG wrote: > 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. ... One of the guidelines says: > 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. I do not understand an errata that suggests changing the defined process should be Archived. Shouldn't this be flat out Rejected? The problem I see with this proposed errata process is that "Archived" tries to fill the gap for the need of an issue tracker for substantial change suggestions (today these are sent to a subset of authors, WG chairs, and/or WG mailing list if active, but are rarely tracked systematically). I don't think the errata process should be used to track substantial change proposals. That procedure needs to be separate from the errata process, and it the best place for it would probably be at @ietf.org. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ 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