A bit more than +1 here ...
On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:55 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Does the IESG plan to catch up on old reported errata that have never been processed?
> There are three here for example:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6275, as much as 4 years
> old. There may be a lot more lurking.
Can I just thank Brian for not picking something from TSV?
Martin and I reeked at that, although we were making progress after a year or two ... Mirja inspired me to Do Better, but I don't remember us getting to zero. Based on https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=2&area_acronym=tsv&errata_type=2&presentation=table including one errata reported by Alfred Hoenes in 2010, I'm guessing we never did.
But this informs my background below.
We need to fix the tooling to delegate to WG chairs to propose actions.
Maybe we want ADs to confirm (like milestones), but I don't think we'll ever
deal with backlog until we can easily keep up with current efforts.
This is my +1 for Michael, but I want to provide a bit of background here.
There is a pretty big range of topics in a single area, between areas. In TSV, I could pretty trivially process technical errata for some working groups, but for other working groups, I had paid almost no attention to them for years, before becoming AD (I love NFSv4, but I was only vaguely aware that NFS was now running over TCP).
I am pretty sure that there are some serving ADs who are responsible for working groups that they've never followed and had to subscribe to the mailing lists when they were seated, and had never even looked at those working group charters (especially not the historical charters). I suspect that's more true in some areas than others, but that's just a guess.
As long as working groups exist, it's likely that WG chairs have fewer errata to look at than ADs, and also that they are more likely to be familiar with the documents and topics from their own working groups.
So, yes, PLEASE consider doing with errata what has been done with milestones. That would make a huge difference for at least some errata from current working groups, and if the ADs end up dealing with the deep end of the swamp without an active working group (or even an active mailing list), well, that's just part of the job. Today, they own all of the swamp.
This is much more likely to work well than nag messages (ADs have some of the most fabulous mail filters I've ever seen, just in order to survive, and once you figure out you won't be recalled if there's a 10-year-old reported errata in your area, there's no going back!).
Best,
Spencer
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
