[Rswg] Re: Scope of new errata system

[Stephen Farrell]

Hiya,

On 16/12/2024 19:40, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Hi,

On 17-Dec-24 06:20, Stephen Farrell wrote:

Hiya,

On 16/12/2024 16:47, Jean Mahoney wrote:

...

  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.

The stream managers are wrong. I don't understand why they'd want to
ignore RFC readers.

I agree, but there are (at least) three types of input we could get from
RFC readers and they probably need different solutions:

I assert that these do not need different solutions. (Details of
one proposal in draft-farrell-errata)

1) User support questions. These would be very distracting for a WG, but
on the other hand do we really want to tell readers not to bother us?

2) Error reports. We need to handle those, of course, more effectively
than today.

3) Comments and suggestions. That is what "RFC" asks for, after all.
Maybe that is simply a matter of priming readers to investigate
IETF (and IRTF) participation.

At the moment, the info page for an RFC says something like:



or for others, such as RFC1,



I don't think many WGs, or the IESG, want to act as a help desk, however.

   Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to the mailing list xx...@ietf.org    Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to the mailing list i...@ietf.org

To address one thing Paul's message implied: I think initial
discussion of proposed errata ought not be on a mailing list,
but on a web page specific to the RFC concerned.

The key question is not the mechanism, but who is responsible for
an erratum report at each stage in its processing, and how are they
nagged to ensure progress.

Again, see the draft cited for a proposal.

Cheers,
S.

    Brian

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org