Re: [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Old Errata

Hi, all,

On 9/14/2016 7:19 AM, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>
> One problem I see is that there’s essentially only a single ping to
> the IESG or RFC Editor, with no subsequent follow up. Things get stale
> when that initial ping gets lost or ignored. This might be an action
> item for the RFC Editor to enhance the pinging mechanism.
>
>  
>
> I’m really glad that the editorial errata are now being taken care of
> by the RFC Editor; having the IESG spend time on those always troubled me.
>
>  
>
> For the older Errata regarding RFCs that have become obsolete, an
> “overtaken by other events” might be an appropriate response.
>

It may still be useful to confirm those as errata, rather than letting
them sit idle. Even "old" RFCs can have errors - especially because
they're often used as examples for new RFCs.

Here's an example: I reported an errata for RFC4130 back in July of this
year, based on that RFC using examples that included port numbers from
the assignable range that were not assigned to the services described
(i.e., the examples should have used ephemeral ports).

Although I appreciate that few are likely to care, all RFCs serve as
prior art and so errata issued against them should be addressed in a
timely manner, IMO.

Joe