Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Errata Verified] RFC7800 (6187)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 31 May 2020, at 12:47, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> But 
>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/, 
>> in particular:
>>
>> Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems or 
>> significant confusion should be Verified.
>> Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an implementation 
>> or deployment problem should be Hold for Document Update.
>> Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to 
>> implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update.
>>
>> Did something change these criteria?
>
> They're guidelines, not absolute rules, and judgment is expected.

Sure, but I was replying to Ben's statement that, "The new text is 
clearly the right thing, and there is no need to debate it if/when the 
document gets updated.  'Don't hold it; do it now', so to speak". That's 
not what Verified ever meant before. If the meaning has changed, that's 
fine, but someone should let the community know and update the IESG 
Statement. (Personally, I'm all for that, as I've found the current 
definitions absurd and confusing. All clearly wrong Editorial errata 
should be marked "Verified", IMO.) But that's not about applying 
judgement; that's changing the definition of the terms used.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best