Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Draft of inline-errata SoW

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Hmm... I'm not sure that that's quite the desirable outcome.

Let's take the example of a clear (and minor) technical error: in the body
of the text, the RFC says that we use code point X and in the IANA
considerations it says code point Y and the code point that people use is
actually "Y". So, someone files an erratum that changes the body of the
text to read Y. In this case, we absolutely do want people to think that
the annotated version is the one with normative force.

-Ekr


On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:28 AM Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Sandy,
>
> You know I like the idea of a sandbox space - the RFC Editor needs a
> better way to explore ideas in a visible way. That said, there is concern
> about any hint of normative-ness to the annotated docs, and hosting them on
> the RFC Ed website might suggest some amount of officialness. I think we
> can potentially mitigate that by including something in the CSS that THESE
> ARE NOT NORMATIVE DOCUMENTS, but other ideas are welcome.
>
> -HEather
>
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I figured this comment/question would be more appropriate here rather than
> as feedback for the SoW.  I can’t remember if placement was decided when
> the IESG discussed this topic at the last IETF, so sorry if this is
> re-raising discussion I should already be aware of.
>
> The text says:
>
> This tool will initially be used to create pages served somewhere other
> than the RFC Editor’s website (www.rfc-editor.org). After gaining
> experience and community feedback, the pages might be moved to that
> website. Thus, the development of the tools should assume that the way the
> results are deployed will change over time.
>
> The RFC Editor has been talking about creating an experimental space on
> our site.  I think it’s worth considering having these annotated documents
> live in an experimental space on the RFC Editor site so they’re on the site
> from the beginning.  This seems like a perfect use for an experimental
> space.  Also, I believe that once these documents live somewhere, that is
> where users will look for them; if they become the de facto RFCs, I think
> we want them to be on our site.
>
> Thanks,
> Sandy
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Adam's developed an initial draft for the inline-errata SoW. He started it
> as a google-doc and my initial set of feedback changes were easy enough to
> make there. Unless someone objects, I suggest we continue the development
> of this one using that tool. If you do object, for any reason, please let
> me know and I'll send a PDF while we adjust.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T-6eBrNPC7aIxOTChdIZE7fecbxUJ7kq-F6RhyCNUGI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> RjS
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>