On 2021-05-10, at 08:31, otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > A clearer distinction between a reported document bug and a verified errata could be a start. Yes. (1) We need to stop calling errata reports that are not (yet) verified, “errata”. The errata are the problems that we *agree* exist. (Each single such problem is an erratum, BTW.) Section 4.8.6.5 of RFC 7322 MUST die, die, die. (My own errata report about the incorrect terminology of that section was almost rejected… https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6347 (*)) (2) When an errata report is indeed verified, it should be OPTIONAL whether the suggested solution is also verified. I’m not unhappy about the idea of last-calling an actual solution instead, after it has been discussed and shaped by authors and the WG (or the WG’s old mailing list, or a dispatch WG if that doesn’t exist). Grüße, Carsten (*) [Err4409] [Err4963] [Err4964] were attempts to change the (admittedly not so bright, after all) WG consensus after the fact. They are still cited as “errata” in RFC 8949 in Appendix G, where we discuss how we handled the errata reports on its predecessor RFC 7049. Reason did not prevail over Section 4.8.6.5.
