Re: Updated IESG Statement "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream"

[Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sure that's true too.

Dare I suggest monthly nag messages, to the WG chairs if they exist, or to the responsible AD otherwise? Or a least, a page that lists all unprocessed errata and their age in days. At the moment I think we don't even know the size of the backlog.

You can find the number by area and status here:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

Not sure if there is a consolidated view that shows them all, but it is easy to determine the number of unprocessed errata (status = reported) for each area.

Responsibility for moving them forward rests with the AD, and not the WG chairs, though WG have a role to play in their resolution. However in many cases the resolution is obvious and can be done quite quickly by the AD.

Perhaps we should require the IESG Chair to report the errata stats by area at each IETF?

- Stewart