Dave Crocker wrote: > > And of course, the reality is that we allow bad specs out the door all > the time; we just allow fewer of them than many/most other standards > bodies... But different to (at least some) other standards bodies, we lack an official means to publish defect reports (aka errata) to document defects in a _timely_(!!) fashion. (Timely = can be found where the RFC says that it can be found, and within at most a few weeks after the defect/omission has been found by an implementor). In theory, we have the errata process, and recent RFC even include a direct URL pointer to the RFC-Editors errata page on the title page: Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX. ("XXXX" containing the real number of the RFC on which this appears). However, the Errata process is currently working poorly, primarily because a number of folks (including some IETF leadership) currently thinks that posting something a trivial as a missing vital one-line clarification to a published RFC as a "substantial change" that can only be performed by publishing a whole new RFC. -Martin