[Fwd: Re: IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream]

[Harald Alvestrand]

The IETF Chair said I should send these questions here....

              Harald


The IESG (by way of Russ Housley <housley@...>) wrote:

> The attached describes the manner in which the IESG will be
> processing RFC Errata for the IETF Stream. The current tools on the
> RFC Editor site support "approved" and "rejected", but they need to
> be updated to also permit "hold for document update" as errata states.
>
> Thanks,
> IESG Secretariat
>
> ------------------------------
>
> These are strong guidelines and not immutable rules. Common sense
> and good judgment should be used by the IESG to decide what is the
> right thing to do. Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the
> specification and should not be used to change what the community
> meant when it approved the RFC. These guidelines only apply to
> errata on RFCs in the IETF stream. They apply to new errata and not
> errata that have already been approved.
>
> After an erratum is reported, a report will be sent to the authors,
> chairs, and Area Directors (ADs) of the WG in which it originated.
> If the WG has closed or the document was not associated with a WG,
> then the report will be sent to the ADs for the Area most closely
> associated to the subject matter. The ADs are responsible for
> ensuring review; they may delegate the review or perform it
> personally. The reviewer will classify the erratum as falling under
> one of the following states:
>
> o Approved - The erratum is appropriate under the criteria below and
> should be available to implementors or people deploying the RFC.

I assume that these will be made prominently visible in the RFC Editor's

errata list.
>
> o Rejected - The erratum is in error, or proposes a change to the
> RFC that should be done my publishing a new RFC that replaces the
> current RFC. In the latter case, if the change is to be
> considered for future updates of the document, it should be
> proposed using channels other than the errata process, such as a
> WG mailing list.
I assume that these errata will not be visible in the RFC Editor's
errata list.
>
> o Hold for Document Update - The erratum is not a necessary update
> to the RFC. However, any future update of the document might
> consider this erratum, and determine whether it is correct and
> merits including in the update.
Are these intended to be visible in the errata list, or not?
(I would prefer them to be visible.)

>
> Guidelines for review are:
>
> 1. Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment
> problems or significant confusion should be Approved.
>
> 2. Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an
> implementation or deployment problem should be Hold for Document
> Update.
>
> 3. Errata on obsolete RFCs should be treated the same as errata on
> RFCs that are not obsolete where there is strong evidence that
> some people are still making use of the related technology.

What's the "Else" here - if there is no such strong evidence, is the

errata Accepted under a different set of conditions, Rejected or Hold
for Document Update? (I would prefer the latter, unlikely as such an
event may be, if my interpretation of intended visibility is right).

                        Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest