On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 5:23 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> > > On 17/12/2024 01:11, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > As a repeat errata ignoring offender, I don't think making the process > > clearer is the issue. > > +1 > > Whilst I was an AD the main problem with errata was the time it took > to acquire enough state to make a decision. With the errata setup as > was that was prohibitive, and I don't think that's changed since, and > as ekr says, the actual payoff for that effort (for the community) is > so low, there were far better ways to spend AD effort, despite all of > that looking "bad." > > IMO, we need an entirely new approach, not any set of tweaks to the > currently utterly useless system, hence draft-farrell-errata. > I agree with Stephen that we need an entirely new approach. I would probably design a somewhat different set of mechanisms than those in draft-farrell, but I think that it is asking the right questions, and in particular is working from the right principles, which I take to be. - Some easy way to go from the RFC to filing an issue - Per-issue discussion with straightforward resolution and approval rules. - Errata as "diffs" against the text so they can be automatically applied - A default "errata applied" view of the RFC. I suspect if we had some agreement on those, we could design something new without *too much* contention. -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
