Open ekr opened 1 year ago
Does it extend to how errata are displayed? Currently all errata -- including rejected -- are given equal billing, and an RFC will indicate that it has errata even if the only errata is/are rejected.
@mnot How errata information is displayed is more of a tooling issue rather than a policy issue.
I see your point re: labeling an RFC as having errata when its only errata has been rejected. Errata "badges" could be clearer, perhaps instead of saying "errata exist" (rfc-editor.org) or just "errata" (datatracker), a badge could say "errata reports exist" or provide more details like "errata: 1 verified, 2 held for doc update, 1 rejected". Note, though, that the current API between rfc-editor.org and datatracker basically just sets a bit if an errata report exists. Datatracker then constructs a URL to the errata page of the RFC and applies a badge.
I've made a note to follow up on this on the RPC tools side. Thanks for calling attention to this UX issue!
+1 to these being two policy questions. Datatracker authentication is not onerous for anyone with a real erratum to report. The IPR question is interesting.
The policy question is whether we require authentication of the submitters of errata, and whether errata are subject to any particular IPR policy.