On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:56 AM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Funny how there are off-the-shelf tools for managing such small changes, which engineers use all the time. (And so do lawyers!)
--Richard
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".
