On 10/28/20 11:42 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
If errata is that mechanism for something controversial, it's news to
me. Mostly what i've seen with errata are minor fixes which the wg chair
and/or authors can sign off easily.
I don't think that errata are the definitive mechanism for potentially
controversial things or things that require intrusive changes to resolve,
but they can be an appropriate tool. A drive-by errata report without
additional discussion is probably not going to be the most effective way to
make progress on such issues, but it can definitely be useful to have the
issue documented in an errata report, even as a revision to the RFC is
underway to fix the issue.
Yeah, there is a massive energy bandgap between errata and revving an
RFC. Obviously you want clue to look over the problem and find the fix,
but the current process isn't set up to quickly rev an RFC, especially
if it is critical from what I've seen. Maybe distinction needs to be
drawn on errata that are not very controversial if at all, and ones that
require protocol changes to make fixes where there are different process
rules for each?
Mike
