- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:51:23 +0200
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Hi, I'd like to make one small comment with respect to the opinion that maintaining an errata list (and potentially handing that to the RFC Editor) would be sufficient. 1) Scott Lawrence' original errata list (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata> is excellent, but it hasn't been maintained since 2004. So we needed to move somewhere else. 2) Just collecting errata sounds nice in theory, but my experience with spec writing is that you can't close a bug until you have applied the suggested fix to the spec text. Frequently, something that looks OK in isolation doesn't work in the specification context. Thus my preference is not only to collect errata and proposed resolutions, but to also have them applied to a copy of the original spec (and have that up for review for everybody). 3) Finally, looking at the amount of issues we have collected in the meantime, I'd be really amazed if the RFC Editor would be willing to take over the editorial work for updating the document. I bet the answer would be: please submit an Internet Draft. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 17:51:39 UTC