Re: [rfc-i] some thoughts about errata

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 08 February 2017 15:08 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 5EA23129BBB for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:08:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 0bRZfjw5lS6R for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:08:54 -0800 (PST)
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 53FA0129BB7 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09006B8030C; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:08:54 -0800 (PST)
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 3C56DB8030C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:08:53 -0800 (PST)
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 yJx1Znwu6wQp for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B9A0B8030B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.56] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v18F7XTR062815 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:07:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [10.32.60.56]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:08:45 -0800
Message-ID: <198B8E82-B049-4535-A854-8F5BFE55826D@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <49a49c57-14f5-0a38-698b-c6e1a9586bb5@gmx.de>
References: <53C0FEEE.9060903@gmx.de> <49a49c57-14f5-0a38-698b-c6e1a9586bb5@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] some thoughts about errata
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
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>

On 8 Feb 2017, at 2:22, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2014-07-12 11:25, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Below are some thoughts about how the errata system could be made 
>> more
>> useful; note that this isn't about the process but just about the
>> information offered by the RFC Editor web site:
>>
>> 1) Each erratum should have a stable URI that can be used for 
>> citations.
>>
>> 2) For each RFC, there should be a machine-readable (*) HTTP resource
>> (**) offering status information about the set of erratas present for
>> that RFC. The minimal information about each erratum would be ID 
>> and/or
>> URI, status, and the section number it applies to (when available).
>> Extra points for date information and maybe a title.
>>
>> (*) Optimally both JSON and XML. The former is good for JS running in
>> browsers, the latter fits better into document production toolchains
>> starting with XML anyway.
>>
>> (**) That implies proper CORS settings so that browsers can actually 
>> get
>> the information even when the origin of the document is different.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>
> OK, this was 2.5 years ago. People apparently agreed (and asked for 
> even more).
>
> Heather, could you please provide some feedback?

FWIW, I agree with #1 but think #2 is overkill and unlikely to be worth 
the effort.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest