Subject: Small modifications to RFC4364

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:41:06 -0800

Let me suggest this course of action:

1. Luca, send email to this list with a very short AUTH48 RFC Editor 
format instruction on how to correct the cited error in RFC 4364. I will 
take this and try and get it published *very* quickly.

2. If #1 fails, publish the short draft. Also, if the WG feels that this 
issue is of such importance that the RFC Errata does not reach everyone 
it needs to, publish the short draft.

3. I do think the WG should work on an RFC4364bis, particularly if there 
are other "mistakes" and areas of clarification that need to be 
documented. We cannot let this be a precedent for dozens of short drafts 
to fix every mistake or clarification the WG finds in RFC4364.

- Mark

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:21:38 -0500

> if the WG feels that this issue  is of such importance that the RFC Errata
> does not reach everyone it needs to

As far as  I know, the "RFC errata"  does not reach anyone at  all; in fact,
I've never even heard of it.   Therefore if a clarification or correction is
worth making at all, it is worth doing in a short draft.

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:11:32 +0100

Eric Rosen wrote:
> I've never even heard of it.   
Now you have.
> Therefore if a clarification or correction is
Taking a wider view, we'd also like to fix the broken RFC Errata system 
such that small errors/omissions can be made without the cost and 
overhead of a new RFC.

Until that happens, we can advance the occasional short draft if the WG 
believes the issue is pertinent. If we end up on a trajectory towards a 
deluge of short drafts, expect push-back directing towards a -bis of the 
base spec.

Sound reasonable?

- Mark

PS. The tools.ietf.org/html view of RFCs includes a link at the top 
right of the page to Errata if it exists for a given RFC. The IESG has 
recently discussed ways to make RFC Errata more known, and I'd be happy 
to gather ideas if anyone has any.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:40:56 +0000

> such that small errors/omissions can be made without the cost and 

It would be a good idea if the IETF made a small change in its policy
of not modifying RFCs to allow the reader to be alerted to the
existance of errata.

For example the RFC number might get a rev suffix (RFC9999a, 
RFC9999b...) and the itentity of the errata put in the boilerplate.

- Stewart

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:18:34 +0000

Stewart Bryant wrote:

  Mark Townsley wrote:

> Taking a wider view, we'd also like to fix the broken RFC Errata 
> system such that small errors/omissions can be made without the cost 
> and overhead of a new RFC.

  For example the RFC number might get a rev suffix (RFC9999a,
  RFC9999b...) and the itentity of the errata be put in the
  boilerplate.

  - Stewart