Re: #1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?

[Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>]

At 12:02 PM +0200 5/2/06, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>"There may be edge cases, but I'd say that if a "typo fix" leads to
>even minor technical differences, it isn't a "typo fix" anymore, but
>must be treated as a "modification".

The problems really come in when the individual doesn't fully understand
what is being specified and fixes it to something they do understand.  In
one recent exchange with a technical editor, for example,  "uuencoded" got
fixed to "unencoded".  I presume that the editor did not know what
uuencoded meant, and did know what unencoded meant; the paragraph
made sense with "unencoded" in that slot, but that wasn't what was intended.

I think the discussion so far has convinced me that the appropriate way
to handle this is to make the correction in commentary, e.g. "This is specified
in the RFC as  BAR = numchar, but I believe that BAR = 1*numchar was
meant, and I have implemented accordingly" .  I would obviously suggest
putting in an erratum for the RFC as well.

For typos like "there implementation", insert a "sic" if you can't stand leaving
it, and be done.

Two cents from the peanut gallery,
				Ted

>(Of course, I argue that modifications should be permitted as well,
>but that is another discussion.)
>
>Regards,
>Simon
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipr-wg mailing list
>Ipr-wg at ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg