Hi all,
At IETF 121 Dublin, there was a stream managers’ meeting to discuss
errata, with the RPC seeking guidance on the overall approach to errata
that should form the basis of a proposal for a new system.
Specifically, the RPC wanted feedback on two views that have emerged
from discussions on this list:
1. Any new system should aim to address the broader issue of supporting
RFC consumers who have a question.
2. There should be a separate forum (a list, issue tracker, or other
solution) where document issues are discussed that can better manage
issue outcomes such as errata creation or document updates.
These two views are well expressed in
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-farrell-errata-00.html
The feedback from the stream managers was clear: When a mailing list
exists for a relevant working group or research group, then any
discussion about errata should be on that group's list, and not in a
separate system, in order to ensure transparency and that any decision
reflects group consensus. There was a concern that a separate system
would be disconnected from the WG/RG and potentially dominated by a
small group of people who had the time, but maybe not the authoritative
knowledge, to respond.
From the RPC side, there was concern that consumers of RFCs are quite
different from RFC producers, and it is not helpful to drop a consumer
with a question into the WG/RG process. The stream manager response was
that the integrity of the WG/RG process could not be risked with a
separate discussion forum, and therefore any proposed new system should
*not* aim to address the broader issue of supporting RFC consumers who
have a question, but solely concentrate on errata reports.
Best regards,
Jean
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
