Yoar,
I looked at this - to see if I missed something - and the picture that
comes over is
Year number of errata working group
2005 1 tewg
2010 5 nsfv4
2011 1 nsfv4
2012 1 nsfv4
2013 11 Legacy (gen), Poisson (gen), krb-wg (sec),
mext (int), nsfv4, non-wg (sec) x 2,
keyprov(sec) behave (tsv), non-wg (gen),
dane (sec)
2014 35 many wg's
2015 57 many wg's
2016 114 many wg's
I think there are one problem here that need to have some type of
management action. The tewg, nsfv4 and of the wg's with errata from
2013 only dane is still active.
The ADs might have to point to someone to resolve the (oldest) errata.
Or errata that belong to closed wg's.
/Loa
On 2016-09-12 10:29, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi
I’ve just noticed that there are a lot (224 at this point in time) or reported errata that have not yet been handled ([1]). Some of these are fairly recent, but a lot are from months or years ago, including 5 from 2010, 1 from 2005 (for RFC 3970 - “A Traffic Engineering (TE) MIB”)
Is there some process for getting all these errata handled? I know the usual process is that someone submits a report, ADs or WG chairs notice, and after a brief discussion the report is classified as Verified, Held for Document Update, or Rejected. But ISTM that some reports fall through the cracks.
And sure, I only noticed because one of those 224 is mine...
Yoav
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=2&presentation=table
--
Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert loa@xxxxx
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64