On 20/07/2016 02:28, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A couple of initial comments:
>
> Q1:
>
> In section3, the text says:
>
> "- Providing feedback on correctness and pointing out errors. This
> is a much easier process than submitting errata, and as such would
> likely yield a larger number of corrections."
Really? I've never found submitting an erratum to be difficult, apart from
being annoyed each time by the collective failure to treat the word "errata"
as a plural.
> I assume that, if something is to be fixed, an errata will eventually have to be created? I.e. the annotation will not be a formal correction.
Clearly not - it will need filtering by somebody, and the identity of "somebody"
is a critical issue. With >7000 RFCs, are we going to need a list of >7000 designated
experts? But if nobody filters the annotations for useful stuff, this will just
become a garbage dump.
> Q2:
>
> Keep in mind that some text in an RFC may not be valid anymore, if:
>
> 1) It has already been changed in an errata; or
> 2) It has been updated in another RFC ("this RFC updates section X of RFC Y")
Right. So actually we need each RFC to be pre-annotated with applicable errata
and updates from other RFCs. That's an interesting little AI project in itself.
(A side issue is that RFCs with status "Historic", "Obsoleted by" and "Unknown"
should probably be "greyed out" because annotating them is largely a waste
of time.)
(Another AI project is carrying forward relevant annotations to a new updating
or obsoleting RFC.)
> Now, anyone who is about to give comments should obviously make sure whether the affected parts have been updated. But, assuming I want to comment on text that exists in an errata, how does that work?
That would be OK if the the erratum is already added as a annotation.
Rgds
Brian
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer
> Sent: 19 July 2016 14:54
> To: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: How to get feedback on published RFCs [resending as plaintext]
>
> Once an RFC is published, there is essentially no way for readers to provide feedback: what works, what are the implementation pitfalls, how does the document relate to other technologies or even to other RFCs.
>
> We IETF insiders usually know what is the relevant working group, and can take our feedback there. Non-insiders though don't have any contact point, and so will most likely keep their feedback to themselves. These non-IETFers are the target audience of our documents! Unfortunately, our so-called "Requests for Comments" are anything but an invitation to submit comments.
>
> There is a number of tools now that allow "web annotations" (i.e.,
> comments) on various published documents. I submitted a draft [1] recently that proposes to enable annotations on the "tools" version of our RFCs. Technically, this is a trivial change. From a process point of view it is more complicated and merits discussion on this list. Sec. 6 of the draft allows you to see for yourself what such annotations would look like.
>
> I am here in Berlin if people prefer to talk it over in person.
> Otherwise, please reply on this list.
>
> Thanks,
> Yaron
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations-00
>