W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:25:50 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20070601202550.GA17429@mail.shareable.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

Fwiw, I'm not saying that just keeping errata is sufficient.  But I
think that an updated RFC _without_ keeping track of the errata
(i.e. not keeping track of them as they are now) would be a mistake.

Someone else mentioned the importance of being able to see what
changed from one version of the RFC to another, without having to
decompile the text.  I agree.  How the text is written and organised,
and the quality and focus of a "changes" section, are part of that.
Having access to the errata which prompt the new RFC version are also
part of it.

The errata is a list of potential interop and
quality-of-implementation issues (not everything on it, but some
things), which are useful to implementors and people designing similar
protocols.  It's valuable in its own way, but that doesn't mean
editing the RFC is not valuable as well.

-- Jamie
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 20:26:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:10 GMT