On 31 May 2020, at 12:47, Barry Leiba wrote:
But
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/,
in particular:
Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems or
significant confusion should be Verified.
Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an implementation
or deployment problem should be Hold for Document Update.
Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to
implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update.
Did something change these criteria?
They're guidelines, not absolute rules, and judgment is expected.
Sure, but I was replying to Ben's statement that, "The new text is
clearly the right thing, and there is no need to debate it if/when the
document gets updated. 'Don't hold it; do it now', so to speak". That's
not what Verified ever meant before. If the meaning has changed, that's
fine, but someone should let the community know and update the IESG
Statement. (Personally, I'm all for that, as I've found the current
definitions absurd and confusing. All clearly wrong Editorial errata
should be marked "Verified", IMO.) But that's not about applying
judgement; that's changing the definition of the terms used.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
