Re: RFC Errata Delinquents

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> 
  *> Bob,
  *> 
  *> some thoughts here, none of which may be directly helpful:
  *> 
  *> - in order to make those calls for verification, you seem to need to 
  *> maintain an updated address archive for authors. Do you in fact maintain 
  *> such an archive? If so, how do you get updates?
  *> 

No we don't.  We have thought about it, but backed away, since it seems
like a bottomless pit.  However, I believe that in the cases I
forwarded, we DID NOT get email bounces.


  *> - for "Status: UNKNOWN" RFCs like 724, it seems appropriate to ask the 
  *> authors to comment on the technical validity of the errata. But for a Draft 
  *> Standard like RFC 2046, it seems to me that if the errata actually 
  *> introduces technical change, it needs community verification, not just 
  *> author verification. Who defines (or should define) the procedure for RFC 
  *> Errata vetting, and where is it documented?
  *> 

OUCH!  I must admit that had not occured to us. Well, the changes
involved are very local and SHOULD NOT alter the meaning, but clarify
it.  But I do see the issue you raise.  I HOPE we can construct a procedure
that is not too onerous.  How about asking the ADs to check that the
proposed fix does not alter the meaning?


  *> - in the interest of the errata mechanism remaining lightweight, I might 
  *> suggest something like saying "if the author cannot be contacted, the 
  *> errata will be verified with at least one expert in the field of the RFC in 
  *> question, and will be posted with a note saying 'Note - not verified with 
  *> authors'" after a timeout on the author request.
  *> 

That seems reasonable.  We would be very happy to forward the actual
errata items to the IESG for their expert opinions... ;-))

Appreciate the feedback.

Bob