Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello all,

I've observed several problems with submission mechanism for RFC Errata. Here they are:

First, we have only two types of errata - Technical or Editorial. In presence of <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/rfc-metadata-errata.html>, "IESG Statement on IESG Processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata", I think the third type is necessary - Metadata.

Second, the "Section" field at <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_report.php> implies that only numerical sections will contain something an erratum can be reported against (overlooking the GLOBAL option). However, Appendices, Abstract, Index, Author Info, different Notes exist, that aren't covered here.

Third, Original text and Corrected text fields imply that only before-and-after errata may be submitted. However, there might be errata like Erratum # 6 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=6), with an only Report text field. I understand this feature was present in previous versions of errata mechanism but removed from the current.

So, taking this into consideration, some specific proposals:

1) Additional Metedata erratum type. The fields which will be required to be filled in are: (a) metadata type: document source, RFC number, subseries*, obsoletes header*, updates header*, obsoleted-by header*, updated-by header*, category, (b) current value, and (c) correct value. Values marked under * in (a) may be available in the case when such metainfo is present in the RFC.

2) Replace the "Section" field with the drop-down list containing the following options: Section, Appendix, Abstract, Table of Contents, Note, Author information, Index. In the case of the first two an additional field for number is available; in the case with Note - type of Note (RFC Editor, IESG etc.).

3) Allow user to choose whether they will enter old_text-new_text erratum or single_text erratum.

Also, several issues not related to submission mechanism.

1) Specific mailing lists devoted to discussion of errata against RFCs from different areas. I've proposed this on rfc-interest list; see rationale at <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2011-August/002672.html>.;

2) Users might want to submit comments which could be displayable at erratum's page, similar to the mechanim employed by some IETF WGs in issue trackers. This also includes ability to add myself to cc list.

3) Verified technical errata may be incorporated in the references. Eg. 4 technical errata were reported against RFC 793 and verified; so the reference may be:

Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981.  Ammended by RFC Errata Reports 573, 1562, 1564, 1572.

So, further discussion is welcome...

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]