Scribd
Upload
14 views6 pages

Errata Report1113

This report provides an overview of the RFC errata collection, detailing the history and current status of errata reports, including a decrease in reported errata and the introduction of a web portal for easier processing. As of October 2013, there are 3669 errata reports, with only 2% unprocessed, and the report highlights the use of a verification system by distinct users. Additionally, it addresses data quality concerns regarding the labeling of errata types and the potential for corrections in the reporting process.

Uploaded by

Fird Flippers
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views6 pages

Errata Report1113

This report provides an overview of the RFC errata collection, detailing the history and current status of errata reports, including a decrease in reported errata and the introduction of a web portal for easier processing. As of October 2013, there are 3669 errata reports, with only 2% unprocessed, and the report highlights the use of a verification system by distinct users. Additionally, it addresses data quality concerns regarding the labeling of errata types and the potential for corrections in the reporting process.

Uploaded by

Fird Flippers
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Report on RFC Errata

28 October 2013

This report describes RFC errata as available from


http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php. This report contains:
1. Overview of RFC Errata Collection
2. Use of the Web Portal
3. Reported Errata by Source of RFC
4. Data Quality

See http://www.rfc-editor.org/status_type_desc.html for Type and Status


descriptions, and draft-rfc-editor-errata-process regarding the process.

1. Overview of RFC Errata Collection

The RFC Editor has been collecting errata since 2000, with a large influx
from 2006 onwards. Over time, the approximate 50/50 ratio of
Technical/Editorial errata has remained. The amount of Reported errata
has been decreasing recently as the IESG processes errata for RFCs in the
IETF stream per the IESG statement on processing errata
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html). There are
currently 3669 errata reports.

Only 2% of errata have not been processed (i.e., are Reported); it was 5%
a year ago (November 2012).

1
The following graphs show the number of errata reports submitted per year
since we started collecting errata in 2000. Most errata submitted before
2005 were Verified.

2
The following graphs show that Held for Document Update has been used
more for Editorial errata than Technical errata, which seems appropriate.

3
2. Use of the Web Portal

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.

Five years later, the submission system has been used by 797 distinct
users. When the IESG statement regarding errata processing for the IETF
stream was completed 30 July 2008, a status called “Held for Document
Update” was added. With this status and improved search functionality
available, the verification system is being used more. 39 distinct
verifiers have used the system.

The following graphs show the number of errata submitted each month in
the past 2 years. On average, 28 errata were submitted per month.

4
Over time, the verifiers have been marking errata as Verified, Rejected,
and Held, thereby decreasing the amount of Reported errata. In the chart,
the data for IETF 88 is as of 2013-10-31.

5
3. Reported Errata by Source of the RFC

The following graph shows the number of errata reports per document
source (as of 2013-10-31).

4. Data Quality

Approximately 25 unprocessed errata reports contain multiple items, so


the actual number of individual reports is larger than 3669.

The Type labels (Technical/Editorial) should be taken with a grain of


salt, as many reports (especially the older ones) may be mislabeled.

As verifiers make determinations regarding the status of errata, it is


expected that the contents of some errata will be corrected – in the
cases mentioned above, the reports could be atomized (or at least split
by Status), and Type labels could be corrected.

You might also like