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

Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 31 January 2019 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE85130ED4 for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:20:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24L113XEIkps for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F323130ED9 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2541C5E7B; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:19:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rlrfBlaBk_ZV; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:19:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.198.42.38] (c-71-231-216-10.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [71.231.216.10]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A1481C5E77; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:19:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <DEF205B2-3846-45FE-97D1-D6DD46189646@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5E4E3E11-3F6A-451B-B6B9-BEFCD6C07178"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:20:12 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMJUYZiQ+pBsoWjoXTPe=LD0TNh-HFhBK+xnamzg03s1w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>, IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <8368cd93-8148-3ebd-7504-9fee9dfc5b53@nostrum.com> <DFF29D04-35BA-46FD-862C-F8EB93B23865@amsl.com> <B2D8DAC2-63F3-4613-B032-A2CBBB0BE43A@rfc-editor.org> <CABcZeBMJUYZiQ+pBsoWjoXTPe=LD0TNh-HFhBK+xnamzg03s1w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/pKkxSX-Rex2xNQytzrj0pSN_GDI>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Draft of inline-errata SoW
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-development/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-development@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:20:22 -0000

Hi ekr, 

I understand your point, but must disagree - these documents will not be fully archived, and the verification process is outside the consensus process (which I think is important for IETF documents). 

-Heather

> On Jan 31, 2019, at 11:29 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <rse@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rse@rfc-editor.org>> 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 <sginoza@amsl.com <mailto:sginoza@amsl.com>> 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 <http://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 <rjsparks@nostrum.com <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>> 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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T-6eBrNPC7aIxOTChdIZE7fecbxUJ7kq-F6RhyCNUGI/edit?usp=sharing>
>>> 
>>> RjS
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
>>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org <mailto:TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org <mailto:TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org <mailto:TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>