Alvaro, > On May 10, 2021, at 12:22 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On May 8, 2021 at 6:53:46 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > > > Bob: > > Hi! > > ... >> I think something is needed where the reported problem can be accepted, but >> the fix can be rejected. Perhaps some new states, or a change to how the >> Errata system works. > > You're right, *without proper explanation*, there is no explicit state > that indicates a valid problem and an invalid solution. Hold for > Document Update is the closest as further discussion is obviously > needed. > > However, even with a proper explanation, it may still be confusing > whether the proposed solution is valid or not. One of the issues is > that there is a single notes field that is used by both the submitter > and the verifier. Also, these notes appear *after* the > problem/solution have been described, making it harder to find > relevant comments. > > Changing how the errata system works requires a wider discussion of > course -- beyond what the current statement is intended for. I agree, I wanted to start that discussion. However, it might be good if the IESG statement mentioned this issue. I note this is a real issue based on several Errata filed on IPv6 RFCs produced by 6MAN. It was dealt with by rejecting the errata and filing a new one with a solution that the w.g. agree to. Hardly an ideal situation and would have been avoided if problem reporting was separated from fixes. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
