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