IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream
Date: 30 Jul 2008
The [below] describes the manner in which the IESG will be
processing RFC Errata for the IETF Stream. The current tools on the
RFC Editor site support "approved" and "rejected", but they need to
be updated to also permit "hold for document update" as errata states.
These are strong guidelines and not immutable rules. Common sense
and good judgment should be used by the IESG to decide what is the
right thing to do. Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the
specification and should not be used to change what the community
meant when it approved the RFC. These guidelines only apply to
errata on RFCs in the IETF stream. They apply to new errata and not
errata that have already been approved.
After an erratum is reported, a report will be sent to the authors,
chairs, and Area Directors (ADs) of the WG in which it originated.
If the WG has closed or the document was not associated with a WG,
then the report will be sent to the ADs for the Area most closely
associated to the subject matter. The ADs are responsible for
ensuring review; they may delegate the review or perform it
personally. The reviewer will classify the erratum as falling under
one of the following states:
- Verified - The erratum is appropriate under the criteria below and
should be available to implementors or people deploying the RFC.
- Rejected - The erratum is in error, or proposes a change to the
RFC that should be done by publishing a new RFC that replaces the
current RFC. In the latter case, if the change is to be
considered for future updates of the document, it should be
proposed using channels other than the errata process, such as a
WG mailing list.
- Hold for Document Update - The erratum is not a necessary update
to the RFC. However, any future update of the document might
consider this erratum, and determine whether it is correct and
merits including in the update.
Guidelines for review are:
- 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
- Errata on obsolete RFCs should be treated the same as errata on
RFCs that are not obsolete where there is strong evidence that
some people are still making use of the related technology.
- Trivial grammar corrections should be Hold for Document Update.
- Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to
implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update.
- Changes which are simply stylistic issues or simply make things
read better should be Hold for Document Update.
- Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
might be different from the intended consensus when the document
was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or
Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment.
Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus,
or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear
situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update.
- Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an
IANA registration procedure, to something that might be different
from the intended consensus when the document was approved should
(Correction 2014-04-21: "Approved" changed to "Verified" to match correct status.)