errata vs latest version of a specification

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 6/25/19 2:38 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:


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.  

Keith



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux