[rfc-i] RFC diff and patch for errata
Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Sat, 24 September 2016 13:07 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86EA12BE09
for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8kii1bi7Pl62
for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12AC112BDA9
for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>;
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])
by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE02DB812FD;
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42C4B812FD
for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id xtoxhEKE6v0R for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>;
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183])
by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E23B812FC
for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [75.83.2.34])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE377509B6;
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:07:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Message-ID: <94f240ac-67e5-e593-0b1e-f9f09a4d9218@seantek.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:09:11 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [rfc-i] RFC diff and patch for errata
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions."
<rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>,
<mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>,
<mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
The topic of errata management has come up in recent weeks. I was wondering if "RFC diff and patch" for errata would be seen as a useful thing. Specifically, errata could be uploaded and saved with an additional patch file, that is the output of the industry standard diff -u. This would be especially helpful, for example, for correcting errors in normative code or notation such as ASN.1, ABNF, XML, YANG, etc. The main issue with the plain text format is that if not managed "judiciously", a patch could cause more than 56 lines (or 58 lines) to appear on a page. I assume that it is very undesirable to shift the pagination boundaries due to an errata change, so something else would have to give for errata that can't be corrected without changes to the line count. But I think that 99% of errata can be handled without changes to the line count. The xml2rfc format has other issues, namely the lack of a diff/patch tool for XML that rises to the level of "industry standard" akin to diff -u. But tools exist. Regards, Sean _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- [rfc-i] RFC diff and patch for errata Sean Leonard