- 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>
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 UTC