REPORTING ERRORS IN PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS Published OGF documents in the GFD series may have errors. Errors may be quite small (such as a spelling mistake), or quite large (such as a perceived shortcoming in a protocol). The OGF welcomes reports of document errata, and can receive them via email or Web page submission at www.ogf.org. Errata reports will be revised by the OGF Editor, then communicated to the document authors/editors for their recommendation concerning the errata disposition. Errata reports should not be made anonymously, so that the authors/editors can have discussion with whoever reports the potential errors, to insure the nature of the error is understood. Because every OGF document goes through a complete review process prior to publication, the errata process should not be used as a substitute for thorough document review prior to publication. For example, suggestions about useful additional sections, interesting references to related work, and criticism of the depth of examples used, would probably not result in changes to a published document. Instead, errata reports should be directed at either relatively minor editorial problems (spelling, punctuation, layout...) or at technical omissions or lack of clarity in a recommendation. Errata Process -------------- We reinforce that the authors/editors of a document (the people listed on the first page) have ongoing permanent responsibility for the document. They are the first point of contact for any errata reports, and any errata reports should be confirmed with them before being acted upon. We further note that the authors/editors listed on the first page of a document are considered interchangeable for the purposes of the errata process -- that is, decisions communicated by one author will be considered authoritative. This puts the responsibility on the document authors/editors to communicate among themselves, as well as with group members and others as needed, to make decisions concerning their document. Three types of fixes are envisioned: 1. Editorial fixes: updates to a document which are not widely announced or publicized. This category might include headers/footers, spelling, formatting, or simple wording changes for clarity. 2. Minor technical fixes: updates to a document which are not simply editorial. For example, an update to an XML schema due or addition to a protocol, to bring the document into agreement with current practice. All such changes will be confirmed with the author(s). 3. Major technical Fixes. Such fixes will often require additional technical review. For example, if a proposed recommendation has elements that do not work in practice, or are otherwise found insufficient, there will need to be a decision whether to fix the document, or instead seek to write an updated document that will obsolete the old document. This decision will be made in cooperation with authors/editors, the OGF Editor, the cognizant area directors, and GFSG (others as needed). The OGF Editor will oversee the errata process, but can ask authors/editors, area directors, external reviewers, or others for assistance as needed. Editorial fixes should be reported within the first six months after a document is published by the OGF. Beyond that timeframe, the OGF Editor might reject changes, instead leaving the document in place as-is. The basis for the decision is whether minor changes justify the possibility of multiple different versions of a document being used by different people, who might have obtained the document from the OGF before it was updated. 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, etc.). Whenever a document is updated, even for minor editorial updates, the document header will be adjusted to reflect the most recent update. The date of update should appear in the upper right side of the document's first page, under 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. For all other updates, an errata report will 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 detailed discussion is desired, the Document Change History can refer to a later section where the update is discussed in more detail. This errata process is not intended to be a mechanism for obsoleting prior versions of a document. If substantial updates are needed to a document, a new document should be created and brought through the complete editorial review process. When a new document obsoletes an old document, that old document will be edited (header only) to indicate it has been obsoleted by a new document. To summarize the decision path for the errata process, - If there are only minor spelling, typographical changes, etc., reports should go to the document authors/editors, then to the OGF Editor for approval and implementation. If reports are delivered to other parties first, they should be passed to the OGF Editor who will make a reasonable effort to contact the authors/editors of the document. - If there are changes to the document that do not affect conformance (that is, the changes will not impact any implementations based on the document), the authors/editors must approve the specific change, which will be put in place by the OGF Editor. Minimally, the WG/RG/CG chair and a cognizant area director will be consulted before putting the change into place. - If there are changes to the document that might affect conformance, they will be discussed among the authors/editors, the OGF Editor, and others as appropriate including the WG/RG/CG chair, area director, and GFSG. A decision as to whether to update the document will be based on the length of time since the current document was published, the scope of the proposed change, and any other factors deemed appropriate by the OGF Editor. Changes deemed too substantial for this errata process will instead require submission of a new document, to obsolete the old. Authority to accept or reject proposed changes to a document is placed first with the document's authors/editors, who must make a timely decision concerning any errata reports (by responding in writing within 30 days). Authority on how to handle proposed changes approved by the document's authors/editors rests with the OGF Editor, who will consult with group chairs, area directors and others at his/her discretion. Conflict or disagreement concerning the handling of errata will be resolved following the same procedures as other disagreements within the OGF, by escalating to the GFSG and, if necessary, beyond. Any reasonable effort will be made to accommodate errata reports, and to seek mutually agreeable resolution to the handling of document errata.