Hi Kent,
We inherited a structure in which RFC are immutable. This leads to the errata process and long cycles of updates by WG processes. Is that the best we can do?
I have many times observed the value in RFCs being immutable - e.g. as prior art in patent cases (which actually improves the ability of the public to use our protocol standards) and to minimize confusion between versions (if you're quoting RFC XXXX for some particular XXXX it means the same thing to everybody, rather than having to also cite a date or version).
Regarding erratum, though a formal process exists to review and publish errata exists, it seems to be of little effect, as few observe, much less are even aware, such exists, despite the text in the boilerplate on the first page and the link at the top of each RFC's tools.ietf.org page. Experience/opinions may vary on this point.
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.
Alissa
PS: I agree that this is low-priority relative to other items being discussed, but wanted to mention it while the door was open.
Kent
|
