Hi Stephen, On 19. Dec 2024, at 13:57, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > Your list omits enabling discussion of RFC text prior to reporting > something as an erratum, so that we end up with better/fewer-but-real > errata, and are nicer to readers and approvers than currently.
maybe I don’t understand your proposed new system, but it seems to share one weakness of the current system: Today, the reporter gets to shape the errata report, and then the AD (or other verifier) can put in verifier notes. The resulting verified erratum is not always useful to be read in-line with the RFC. (Worse for HFDU; not sure this situation “We know what’s wrong, but really this needs to be fixed in a -bis” is covered in your system.) Maybe we need to have a bit of revision control on the text that finally is approved and goes into the RFC? (Also, the explanation why this change was needed, including any new specific examples, needs to go somewhere.) Grüße, Carsten -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
