On 25/06/2019 19:55, Michael StJohns wrote:
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".
I think that depends on how much is spent dealing with the cost of two
incompatible implementations.
- Stewart
