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.
It sounds like a disaster to me. I've lost too much hair
trying to deal with people working at a distance, and using
different versions of a specification. Perhaps the errata could
be made more visible. But I find it much better to have separate
errata than to have have late changes buried in the text of a
specification.
