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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 12:58:54PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 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 

To be clear, that was an off-the-cuff remark and not a considered opinion.

> 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 

They're also not especially internally consistent.  The first point quoted
lists causing "significant confusion" as grounds for Verified, but the
second point doesn't, even though it lists the other two items and one
might expect it to mirror the first point.

Would having a link to go a completely different document than one should
be seeing cause "significant confusion"?  For some people, I think it
would.  I've certainly had such cases, myself, before -- IIRC I put a
Discuss on a document that referenced RFC 7519 when it meant 7159 (in that
case, the "wrong" document was close-enough to topical to be plausible,
albeit incorrect).

-Ben

> 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