Hi Brian, Jean,
At 07:19 AM 20-12-2024, Jean Mahoney wrote:
[JM] Commenting on this first one --
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2019
Although this is labeled Editorial, the RPC staff would change the
type to Technical and ask a WIT AD to verify.
If the document was in the queue right now, we wouldn't make this
sort of update to it unless directed by an author and then receiving
approval from an AD.
The RPC switches about 30% of all Editorial reports to Technical, so
the RPC would need to evaluate these older Editorial reports before
rejecting them, which would be the same amount of work as just verifying them.
I went through the first few reports.
Erratum 2019 is related to a document about pNFS. I would not list
it as editorial as the reporter suggested that the term "RAID4" be removed.
Erratum 3755 is suggesting a change to the metadata for the RFC. I
would reject it with a polite note which explanation about the Historic status.
Erratum 4104 is related to a document about DTLS. It is not
editorial in my opinion as it would change the consensus at the time
of approval.
My quick reaction (which could be wrong) is that the first few
reports could be non-trivial to process. On one hand, it might be
useful to have a discussion on that. On the other end, the RSWG
might have to put off Stephen's idea on hold for a few weeks or
more. I would also have to forget the policy outline which Jean sent
for a few weeks.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
