Re: [rsab] [Rswg] Errata report notification (Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9280 (7795))

Hi Jean,

I missed that this errata was reported as editorial. Given this is more than a typo, I guess it should be reclassified as technical, which would then send it to RSAB.

But yes I think we should also add RSWG as the responsible working group to these errata reports. Remind me, on other streams, do we also cc the (working) group on editorial errata?

Mirja

> On 5. Feb 2024, at 20:56, Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The errata system is currently set up to send errata report notifications to the following:
> 
>   For technical errata reports:
> 
>      To: authors, RSAB
>      CC: reporter, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> 
>   For editorial errata reports:
> 
>      To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>      CC: reporter, authors
> 
> Note that the RPC verifies reports that are of editorial nature (e.g., basic typos, punctuation mistakes, etc.). If we cannot verify the report (i.e., the suggested correction changes the meaning of the text), we will set the report type to "technical" and forward it to the verifier of technical reports. For instance, I would consider the change described in this report to be beyond editorial.
> 
> We can add RSWG to the CC: list for both types of reports. RSAB is considered the verifying party for technical reports. Please let us know if any other changes to notifications are required.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean
> 
> 
> On 2/5/24 5:42 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
>> Thanks Eliot for forwarding.
>> If I see this correctly, this errata report was only send to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. This seems to be the right address to handle the errata, however, as we do also send IETF/IRTF errata to the respective working/research group, I think it would be good to send all errata reports for the editorial stream also to RSWG (and probably also RSAB).
>> Mirja
>>> On 3. Feb 2024, at 09:43, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
>>> 
>>> FYI and for discussion.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Return-Path: 	<wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
>>> Authentication-Results: 	upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=rfc-editor.org
>>> Received: 	from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPS id 4138et9h1897964 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <lear@lear.ch>; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 09:40:57 +0100
>>> Received: 	by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 24DBB11821EE; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:40:54 -0800 (PST)
>>> To: 	rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>>> Subject: 	[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9280 (7795)
>>> From: 	RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>>> Cc: 	lear@lear.ch, stpeter@stpeter.im
>>> Content-Type: 	text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>> Message-Id: 	<20240203084054.24DBB11821EE@rfcpa.amsl.com>
>>> Date: 	Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:40:54 -0800 (PST)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9280,
>>> "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)".
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7795
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Editorial
>>> Reported by: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
>>> 
>>> Section: 8
>>> 
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>> Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be produced
>>> using the process documented herein but shall be published and
>>> operative only after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the
>>> IESG and (b) ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding
>>> its ability to implement any proposed changes.
>>> 
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>> Updates, amendments, and refinements to this document can be
>>> produced using the process documented herein but, unless otherwise
>>> specified in this document, shall be published and operative only
>>> after (a) obtaining the agreement of the IAB and the IESG and (b)
>>> ensuring that the IETF LLC has no objections regarding its ability
>>> to implement any proposed changes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> Section 7 explicitly states:
>>> 
>>> "Proposals that affect these properties are possible within the processes defined in this document."
>>> 
>>> And it goes on from there to discuss RSWG/RSAB review.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, it should not be necessary for the IAB, IESG, and LLC to approve changes in Section 7. That is just a for-instance. There may be other examples.
>>> 
>>> Instructions:
>>> -------------
>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9280 (draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title : RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
>>> Publication Date : June 2022
>>> Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
>>> Category : INFORMATIONAL
>>> Source : IAB
>>> Area : N/A
>>> Stream : IAB
>>> Verifying Party : IAB
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> RSAB mailing list
>>> RSAB@rfc-editor.org
>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab
> 
> -- 
> rswg mailing list
> rswg@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rswg
> 