On 6/25/2019 2:38 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
I sometimes wonder if a lightweight errata-driven republication of RFCs, whereby the "latest" is displayed by default, wouldn't be better. Yes, this leads to versions, such as RFC XXXX.[0-9]*, but why is this a problem or, rather, how is it any worse than current? The "displaying the latest by default" behavior may be limited to just the tools page, but that being the primary access point seems like a lot of goodness to me.
This is both a tools and production cost. Tools to maintain the N side copies, and production in the form of editing and release. While errata tend to be small, there is still some effort in finding the source for the document, making the changes, confirming the changes with the authors and with the errata reporter.
I don't think this meets even the loosest definition of "cost effective".
