On 6/8/19 19:05, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > What we know from history (that Stewart alluded to) is that errata > processing times are quite variable. > The factor Stewart got hit by is the attention the AD(s) pay to it. The part I think is not right is when reported *technical* errata don't get processed for years. > A factor John alluded to is, for example, when we had an interested and > supportive individual read every RFC and note every grammatical error > they found as an errata. I probably know the person you are referring to. But he wasn't just submitting errata. He would also review documents at early stages (drafts) with a level of detail that would blow my mind (and energy ;-) ). I'm thankful for that, he did a lot to help improve documents I co-authored before they got published. Editorial errata on RFCs might be of less value. But I see *tecnical* errata on RFCs as a lot of value -- and as a basis on what to patch when/if a documents gets revised. > And yes, it does help if WGs are responsive to errata as well. FWIW, I do think when an appropriate WG is available, they should work on emptying the errata queue. Like bugs, if nobody cares in patching, why would folks care to report? > But trying to perform statistical analysis on the numbers is likely to > appear to tell us things that just aren't so. Not much of an analysis, but more of a simple way to spot where there might be room for improvement. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
