Hi all,
On 1/2/25 6:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Slightly off topic, but not entirely:
I was curious about the origins of the errata system. The earliest
reference I found is in an ISOC draft statement of work from May 2001
reading:
The RFC Editor will also enrich the web pages for experienced
users. This includes maintenance of an errata web page
containing reported editorial and typographic errors in
published RFCs.
Nothing there about *technical* errors. But in fact they were included
in the implementation, and indeed the first technical erratum report is
#556 reported in February 2000.
[JM] Errata started being posted to the RFC Editor website in 2000 to
deter the repeated reporting of the same errors. Here's what the
"system" looked like back in the day. This was hand crafted:
https://web.archive.org/web/20001029084225/http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html
Although the page describes these as editorial, you can see that some
could be considered technical. In 2002, technical errata were
acknowledged and an overview for processing them was described (and
check out how long errata.html had become):
https://web.archive.org/web/20020914080107/http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html
However, it soon fell to the RFC Editor to do the following with each
report:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02#appendix-B
A web-based system, described in draft-rfc-editor-errata-process, was
implemented in 2007. This is the basis of the current system. Inline
errata functionality was added in 2019 (See
https://www.ietf.org/administration/rfps-and-contracts/ for the RFP and
SOW). The process as it works currently is documented in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rpc-errata-process/
Best regards,
Jean
I feel that all our worries come from technical errata, and the
community has never really discussed the matter until recently.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
