[DFDL-WG] OGF spec updates - planning for errata vs. editorial vs. respins

[Mike Beckerle]

Below are the relevant 3 paragraphs from:
http://www.ogf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/2007-10/draft-gwdc-gfsg-c1-v3.doc.pdf

Our existing errata process divides into editorial things (which we just
fix), minor tech issues, major tech issues which is consistent with the
below.

Note that the discussion suggests not a separate errata document, but that
the errata must be added to the spec itself - and the notion that they are
listed on the cover sheet means they are anticipating only a relatively
small set of such errata compared what has happened since 2013 Sept.

To me this suggests such errata are not suitable for anything one can
anticipate as a "parked issue" for the future. Such things must be in a new
revision of the standard.

Editorial fixes applied within the first month after publication will
generally not be publicly
announced to the OGF community. Any other changes to a document, whether
major or minor,
will be announced using the same mechanism as for a newly published
document (i.e., email to
the OGF community, posting to the OGF Web site, etc.).

Whenever a document is updated, even for minor editorial updates, the
document header will be
adjusted to reflect the date the document was updated. The date of the
update should appear in
the upper right side of the document's first page, beneath any prior date.
For very minor updates,
especially those within the first month after publication, no additional
information needs to be
added to the document. A publicly accessible archive of all old versions of
the document is
maintained, and accessible through the same means as current documents.

For all other updates, minor and major technical fixes, an errata report
must be added to the
document itself. Recommended practice is to put an errata report labeled as
“Document Change
History” on the first page of the document, directly under the copyright
statement and before the
abstract. A brief report on what was changed is sufficient, along with the
date. If a more
discussion is desired, the Document Change History can refer to a later
section where the update
is discussed in detail.



Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology |
www.tresys.com
Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are
subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy
<http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20140923/f7aa5d7a/attachment.html>