Subject: Proposed text for IESG Processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:22:39 +0100

The IESG is considering making this statement on the
processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata.

We would appreciate community feedback.

Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June.

Thanks

Stewart

======

Draft text for IESG Statement on RFC Metadata

Date: xx-xxx-xxxx

This IESG statement describes the manner in which the IESG will
process RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata [RFC5741]. Metadata
is used, for example, in the compilation of the RFC Index.

The Area Director responsible for processing the RFC erratum will review 
the RFC and document history recorded in various IETF archives such as 
the datatracker. Where the error is major, for example
an error in the document track, the Area Director SHOULD
reject the erratum, and initiate the publication of a replacement
RFC.

Where

- The error is minor, for example where there is a minor
error in the list of updated RFCs, and
- The intent of the IETF community as determined from the RFC and the 
records is clear, and
- The RFC has been processed correctly in all other regards,
the Area Director MAY accept the erratum. The Area Director MAY consult 
with the IESG in making this determination.

If the above minor error conditions are met, but the Area Director 
responsible for processing the metadata is of the view that the best 
interests of the community are served by holding the RFC erratum for 
document update, or rejecting the erratum and initiating the
publication of a replacement RFC they MAY process the RFC erratum 
accordingly.

Where there is doubt as to the intent of the IETF community or where the 
RFC has not been processed in accordance with the rules governing the 
proposed change to the RFC metadata, the RFC erratum MUST be rejected.

======

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 21:44:47 +0100

Hi Stewart,

Stewart Bryant wrote:

> The Area Director responsible for processing the RFC erratum will 
> review the RFC and document history recorded in various IETF archives 
> such as the datatracker. Where the error is major, for example
> an error in the document track,

Maybe it is better to call this "Category" as in RFC 5741?

> the Area Director SHOULD

Are "major" and "minor" errors fully defined above? I.e. "minor error" 
only covers errors in Updates and Obsoletes?

> the Area Director MAY accept the erratum. The Area Director MAY 
> consult with the IESG in making this determination.
>
> Where there is doubt as to the intent of the IETF community or where 
> the RFC has not been processed in accordance with the rules governing 
> the proposed change to the RFC metadata, the RFC erratum MUST be 
> rejected.

Some clarifications on the above questions would be useful, but I think 
overall this looks fine.