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

Sandy Ginoza <> Thu, 31 January 2019 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313461271FF for <>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:47:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rj5EtfpWeRpR for <>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31D09126DBF for <>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F3F1C55DD; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:47:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HHyLdX6i90zW; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:47:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3650D1C41B5; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:47:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Sandy Ginoza <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_63EC16B0-4919-4D36-BEAC-A8A329C77740"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:47:30 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IETF Tools Development <>
To: Robert Sparks <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Draft of inline-errata SoW
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 02:47:36 -0000

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 ( 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. 


> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Robert Sparks <> 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.
> RjS
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list