This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
erratasystem:rethink [2015/02/02 16:00] rsewikiadmin |
erratasystem:rethink [2015/02/06 09:41] (current) rsewikiadmin |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Criteria for a successful errata system=== | ===Criteria for a successful errata system=== | ||
- | - | + | - visually and through metadata differentiate between levels of usefulness for an implementer/ |
+ | | ||
+ | - shouldn’t be a PITA to use | ||
+ | - should not be a path for people to change WG consensus | ||
+ | Other critical points: | ||
+ | - RPC to be the gatekeeper for editorial errata; need to have a way to pass through things that look editorial but may have impact on the technical meaning of the text. | ||
+ | - level of effort is a consideration, | ||
+ | - editorial errata and EFL issues may tie together, but that’s hard for this group to really understand without more information | ||
+ | - a system that allows for modding of technical reports seems to have consensus | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Discussion=== | ||
+ | [[http:// | ||
===Proposal 1=== | ===Proposal 1=== | ||
Line 11: | Line 22: | ||
===Proposal 2=== | ===Proposal 2=== | ||
- | [A]n IETF-operated web site that is preferable to the competition (e.g., tools) and that presents errata of this sort as highlighted in a different color on the presented RFC, rather than as comments that are in a separate visual stream from the presented RFC. I would like errata to be done similarly, if they are verified by someone who can check whether a new consensus is required to affirm the erratum. | + | A single website |
===Process Diagram for errata submission=== | ===Process Diagram for errata submission=== | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Who decides if the submission path is correct? | ||
+ | * Do we need a portal so that the user has a simpler experience, rather than having to figure out the rules for the bug tracker, modding system, and errata system? | ||
+ | * How will entries move from one system to another? | ||
+ | * At what points in that process do we have to design tools to interface between systems? | ||
+ | * With multiple publication formats, do all formats get an alternate, corrected version? | ||
+ | * Is there still value in having the info page link to all the different types of errata (RSE votes yes). | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Note: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Additional diagrams or descriptions required for the approval processes |