Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://mirror.msu.net/pub/rfc-editor/rfc-ed-all/IETFreports/2008/ietf72-errata.pdf Дата изменения: Fri Sep 12 20:56:49 2008 Дата индексирования: Wed Sep 15 06:27:37 2010 Кодировка:

Report on RFC Errata This report shows the status of the errata submission and verification process as of 11 July 2008. History We have been collecting errata since 2000, with a large influx from 2006 onwards. There has been an approximate 50/50 ratio of reported Technical/Editorial errata. Over time, the amount of Unverified reports has increased significantly. This is partly due to our underestimating the original problem (i.e., the number of errata that would be submitted), the difficulty in contacting document authors years after publication, the RFC Editor's delay in processing errata, and in 2008 the IESG determining its errata process. There are currently 1425 total errata entries. However, approximately 100 errata reports contain multiple errata in their notes fields, so in fact, the total number of individual reports is larger than 1425. The New System In November 2007, the RFC Editor released a web portal to ease errata processing, allowing users to submit errata via a web form, and allowing the appropriate representative stream bodies to review and verify the reports. The new errata reporting system has been used by 66 distinct submitters since it was made public. However, the new errata verification system has barely been used at all, as the implementation of the new system caused the IESG to create a verification process and seek community input on the proposed process. While determining this process, almost 100% of the newly reported errata remain Unverified. Errata Statistics More than half and more than editor-erratalarger errata of the 1425 errata reports are marked Technical, half are Unverified. Please refer to draft-rfcprocess for the context of these stats in the process.

The use of the new system does not seem to have affected the typical 50/50 ratio of Technical/Editorial errata. Note that the Type labels (Editorial and Technical) should be taken with a grain of salt, as many reports (especially the older entries) may be mislabeled.



More than half of the Technical errata are Unverified. Almost two-thirds of Editorial errata are Unverified.

16 10


The following graphs show the number of errata reports submitted per year.


The graphs below show the total number RFCS published in a given year, and of those, the number of distinct RFCs for which errata have been reported.


The following graphs show the number of errata submitted since the new system was introduced.

Note: The larger number of reports in December is due to a significant amount of errata being reported for a single RFC. This happened somewhat in January as well.


Unverified Errata by Source of the RFC The following graph represents the number of errata reports per document source (i.e., IETF Area, IAB, IRTF, Independent Submissions, and Legacy documents). The majority of errata awaiting review are from RAI Area, Routing Area, non-WG (individual submissions), and Legacy RFCs.

Updates to the Errata System since November 2007

· Made errata reports searchable by unique ID. · Improved the initial report mails as follows: - Included the URL for the individual report. - Included the Type (Editorial/Technical) in the subject line. - Sent to the relevant ADs and WG chairs when the RFC is
product of a working group.

· Created and distributed individual logins for the ADs for
errata verification.

· For the secure verification pages, attained a signed
certificate from a CA.