Subject: [rfc-i] can we just drop the disclaimer that seems to have appeared?

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 13:59:21 -0400

(Apologies, I sent this a week ago and apparently it's been in the
moderation queue as I'm not a subscriber to this list. Someone might
want to check and see if there are others in limbo.)

Hi, first, thank you for all your hard work.

I was excited to see that the datatracker now has verified errata
versions of RFCs up. As someone that spends time with archivists and
librarians (my PhD is from a School of Information), this is a very
welcome development!

However, I noticed this new feature while looking at the HTTP/2 ORIGIN
frame RFC (RFC 8336):

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8336/

However, when I click on that link, it takes me to

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/beta/errata/RFC8336.html

Which has a ginormous and ugly and scary notice that says that despite
it including verified errata, that the "rendering" (whatever that means
in this context) should not be used for reference. This is on top of the
red coloring used for the errata'd text and the "expand" button that
shows the verified errata contents.

That big warning seems a bit much from a usability perspective (people
are less likely to read documents with big scary warnings at the top)
I'd love to just get rid of that thing or have a much more innocuous
thing inline next to the errata-changed text that said something short
and sweet and then linked to why using a document that actually
incorporates the errata should be discouraged as a reference (which
seems silly, but I realize you have good reasons for this kind of thing
that are beyond me).

best, Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 02:18:53 -0700

Hi Joe,
>seems silly, but I realize you have good reasons for this kind of thing

The short answer is that a RFC is not changed once it is published.

The long answer is that.  It is non-trivial to apply a verified 
erratum to a RFC as the new text does not always fit in correctly 
with a "search and replace".  One way to address that is to clean up 
the errata database.  Furthermore, does publication of this amended 
version mean that this is the RFC?  It is likely that the disclaimer 
is about that.

The suggestion to have something aligned with usability seems 
reasonable.  Someone with the necessary expertise might be able to 
devise an appropriate approach where the disclaimer is not too 
intrusive while it serves its intended purpose.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 05:25:11 -0400

See the other thread; apologies I sent this mail a few times trying to get
it through the moderation queue

Joseph Lorenzo Hall