]> The University of Auckland

School of Computer Science The University of Auckland PB 92019 Auckland 1142 New Zealand brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com

Transport RSWG Internet-Draft This document describes policies applicable when the text of an RFC is modified after it has been approved for publication. About This Document Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the RSWG Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at .

Introduction It is very common that the text of an RFC needs to altered after a draft has been approved for publication. There are three principal causes of such changes:

1. Editorial changes made by RPC staff, for example to correct grammatical errors or to respect the style guide.
2. Changes made after those editorial changes, during final processing before publication, at the request of the authors, document shepherd, or members of the approving body. These are colloquially called "AUTH48" changes for historical reasons.
3. Changes made after initial publication of the RFC, when significant editorial or technical errors have been reported and approved by a member of the approving body. These are currently known as "verified errata" and they currently result in the posting of an updated (but unofficial) revision version of the RFC.

Policy Considerations Whether a change is made during editing, during final processing, or to correct an error in the published version, the following principles must be respected:

1. The changed version must be formally approved by a member of the original approving body. Each stream may require a consensus process or further approvals, which the stream will administer itself by an internal process. (This does not preclude informal contact between interested parties and the RPC.)
2. This process must be visible to the community, for example via an on-line forum. (This principle does not require announcement emails, but does not forbid them either.)
3. Each stream must provide a dispute resolution mechanism in case community members disagree with the changes made. This explicitly does not concern the RPC; disputes must be resolved by the stream itself.

Note that these principles apply regardless of whether post-publication changes result in an official republication of the whole RFC, which is a separate issue. Thus they apply to the current "errata" system and to its possible replacement, as well as to the "AUTH48" system.

IANA Considerations No IANA actions are needed.

Security Considerations This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.

Acknowledgements Useful comments were received from [TBD] ...

Change Log [RFC Editor: please remove]

Draft-00

• Original version