Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19281Re: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions: RFC errata

Expand Messages
  • Erik Wilde
    Feb 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      hello tom.

      thanks a lot for your response! it was very useful to get a menu of
      options how to proceed.

      On 2013-02-21 12:04 , t.petch wrote:
      >> - how to best sync draft development, and the submitted errata. there
      >> seems to be no way to predict when and how errata are processed, in
      >> particular for RFC 5261 because the author seems to be unreachable.
      >
      > Indeed! Bear in mind that the text of an RFC is available for further
      > processing within the IETF so while it is desirable that the original
      > author is involved in any updates thereto, that is not a requirement
      > thereof so if you cannot get any response from them, then submitting an
      > RFC5261-bis yourself is quite in order; but quite a lot of work.
      >
      > A simpler approach is to include the relevant changes in
      > draft-wilde-xml-patch
      > and state that this is an update to the relevant sections of RFC5261.
      > These should give more context than the errata do but need not be much
      > longer.
      >
      > Or you can include sections that clarify the issues you have identified
      > in RFC5261 and state in your I-D that your I-D is based on this
      > interpretation ie you are not updating RFC5261 for the world at large
      > but are modifiying the content thereof for the purposes of your I-D.
      >
      > Or you can make normative references to errata by URL once they are
      > approved. I think this the most fraught approach and so the least
      > desirable.

      after thinking about these options for a while, i decided to go with the
      second option. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-04 is
      the updated draft and now officially updates RFC 5261.
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-04#appendix-A lists all
      the changes to that RFC, and i have based this appendix mostly on the
      errata i had filed before. this approach seems to be much less work than
      republishing RFC 5261, and since the changes are rather small, the
      updates aren't that hard to read and apply, when you have to read them
      in addition to RFC 5261.

      thanks again and kind regards,

      dret.

      --
      erik wilde | mailto:dret@... - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
      | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
      | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic