Re: Errata for RFC 5536 and 5537

[Julien ÉLIE <julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lisa,

> I appended your re-correction of the corrected text, rather than
> replace, since you were not the reporter, introduced by "Julian Elie
> suggests the corrected text: ".  Since the errata is held for document
> update, the authors of the next version of the document can analyse
> all the suggestions and can surely correct for formatting.

Buy is it a reason for not having errata of quality?


Well, if it is what you want, I can do nothing more.
I'm not going to argue more on that subject on which I have already
spent far too much time.

I will only say that:
* the erratum mentions that I "suggest the corrected text", which is wrong
  because it is not my suggestion (the formatting I provided was better);
* the erratum is inconsistent;
* the process is inconsistent (no append for erratum 1787 for instance);
* my first name has been mispelled in the edited text:  it is Julien,
  and not Julian.


But well, after all, I don't mind.  I just wanted to give some help
and review to have proper errata on rfc-editor.org but it appears that
it is not what people expect from rfc-editor.org; so be it that way.

I thought that people reading errata would be more pleased to have
detailed, complete information of good quality about an erratum.

Anyway, thanks for your work on RFCs and errata.  I know you are also
writing RFCs (I already read your PATCH method and your guidance about
draft standards).  That's great work, and it requires time and energy.
I also understand that editing errata can be exhausting and is not
quite fun.

All the best for the future,

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Ex nihilo nihil. » (Perse)