rfcseries-wg / new-topics

3 stars 1 forks source link

Errata trolls. [Carpenter] #10

Open ekr opened 1 year ago

ekr commented 1 year ago

The policy question is whether we require authentication of the submitters of errata, and whether errata are subject to any particular IPR policy.

mnot commented 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.

ajeanmahoney commented 1 year ago

@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!

paulehoffman commented 1 year ago

+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.