On 12/19/2024 5:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 20-Dec-24 11:20, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Stephen,
At 05:00 AM 19-12-2024, Stephen Farrell wrote:
The word voting seems to cause responses, which I guess is a good
thing,
in an IETF context.
🙂
What's referred to in the draft is *not* voting, but the kind of
up/down
voting e.g. as used on stackexchange etc, and that is only used to
reduce the number of things that are brought to the attention of those
who would need to spend effort figuring out if a reported erratum is
real or not. After that, whatever stream-specific approval processes
would follow.
It's worth a try. It's better to drop an errata report instead of
leaving it unprocessed for years.
Why? What if it describes a serious problem? How do we know that the 4
open reports from 2010 are of no value without looking at them?
What kind of serious problem are you speaking about? I assume that
serious problems are problems with standard track RFCs. Those problems
are problems with the standard, and as such should be addressed by the
IETF, through the normal standard update process: BOF, Working Group,
mailing list, drafts, etc. The errata process cannot be a parallel way
to update standards.
-- Christian Huitema
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
