--On Monday, September 12, 2016 11:56 +0200 Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote: > 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. As former co-chair of one of the WGs listed, I don't remember ever having been told about this (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3752). If I had been, or were able to comment on the erratum now (there does not appear to be any way in the system for me to do that), I would have said that using an erratum to change (not actually correct, because it was correct when the RFC was published) an email address would rank fairly high on the "pointless" scale... at least until we turn RFCs from archival to living documents or invent a magical mechanism that warns anyone opening an RFC that there are relevant errata.... even if the copy of the RFC they open was copied from the archive years ago onto a machine that is not connected to the Internet. Part of the point is that our Status and Type categories are really not up to the job (something that has been discussed extensively in the past with, AFAIK, no resolution). Given the current categories, just leaving some documents in "Reported" forever might be the right disposition. If we are going to use errata to make minor technical changes, then we probably should have a Status of "Sure, but there needs to be another way to notify people about this issue", maybe with an appropriate Action number in that tracker. It is also tempting to suggest that the "Type" for this kind of erratum should be "smells of dead fish": certainly it is not "Editorial" because the RFC was absolutely correct --technically, operationally, and editorially-- when written. Seems to me that just keeping an alias or link until a few years after the relevant RFC becomes obsolete would be a lot less trouble. I doubt this is the only case -- the errata filing system doesn't have a great track record for S/N ratio and I, at least, would much prefer to have ADs paying attention to WGs and processing of current documents rather than studying the errata files looking for loose ends. john