On 20-Dec-24 16:11, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 6:34 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 20-Dec-24 14:53, Christian Huitema wrote: > > 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. Agreed. In fact, that's what HFDU should mean: this error requires us to update the RFC. This is not how I interpret HDFU. Here's the IESG statement on this topic "*Hold for Document Update* - The erratum is not a necessary update to the RFC. However, any future update of the document might consider it and determine whether it merits including in an update." In other words, HDFU errata could still ultimately be determined to be right or wrong; HDFU just defers them.
Right. And my "should" above is what I would prefer; it should be a call for action. If it's just a shrug of the shoulders, it seems like wasted joules, and calling it "No action" would be more honest. Brian
-Ekr I wonder if (in terms of the current errata system) we aren't simply lacking another final state for errata that are errors, but really don't matter: RAT (Rejected As Trivial). Brian-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rswg@rfc-editor.org>To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org>
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
