Metadata is used, for example, in the compilation of the RFC Index.
The Area Director responsible for processing the RFC erratum will review the RFC and document history recorded in various IETF archives such as the datatracker. Where the error is major, for example an error in the document track, the Area Director SHOULD reject the erratum, and initiate the publication of a replacement RFC.
- The error is minor, for example where there is a minor error in the list of updated RFCs, and
- The intent of the IETF community as determined from the RFC and the records is clear, and
- The RFC has been processed correctly in all other regards,
the Area Director MAY accept the erratum. The Area Director MAY consult with the IESG in making this determination.
If the above minor error conditions are met, but the Area Director responsible for processing the metadata is of the view that the best interests of the community are served by holding the RFC erratum for document update, or rejecting the erratum and initiating the publication of a replacement RFC they MAY process the RFC erratum accordingly.
Where there is doubt as to the intent of the IETF community or where the RFC has not been processed in accordance with the rules governing the proposed change to the RFC metadata, the RFC erratum MUST be rejected.