Hi Stephen,

Thanks for this.  You have a clear outcome in mind, and I think it's a good outcome. The question then is what needs to happen to cause it to be realized.  THIS group has the authority, in my view, to require at least the broad strokes if not the details.  So I would suggest that we find consensus on those broad strokes.  What are they?

 * An additional RFC presentation that includes approved errata.
 * An approval mechanism that takes into account stream differences
     o The implementation may include voting mechanisms and thresholds,
       as set by stream owners.
     o The implementation should include a means for community
       input/discussion.
 * Visibility to proposed changes.

Is that about right?  I would see nothing inconsistent with RFC 9280 in such a policy statement being made through this group.

Eliot

On 18.12.2024 21:39, Stephen Farrell wrote:

Hiya,

I updated this a bit based on recent discussions.

Cheers,
S.

PS: This is only -02 because I messed up with -01;-)


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-farrell-errata-02.txt
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:37:29 -0800
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>

A new version of Internet-Draft draft-farrell-errata-02.txt has been
successfully submitted by Stephen Farrell and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:     draft-farrell-errata
Revision: 02
Title:    Something Better Than Errata
Date:     2024-12-18
Group:    Individual Submission
Pages:    6
URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-farrell-errata-02.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-errata/
HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-farrell-errata-02.html
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farrell-errata
Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-farrell-errata-02

Abstract:

   This document outlines some ideas for a new errata handling policy
   that would (in the author's view) be better than current errata
   handling.  This is for discussion and is not expected to become an
   RFC.



The IETF Secretariat



Attachment: OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: 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

Reply via email to