On 6/8/19 18:52, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:48:00AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > The usual process is for the IETF Chair tell the ADs to address them >> > and get the numbers down, and for the rest of us to have a discussion >> > with the the Nomcom if neither of those happen. >> >> I think that we need to do something to allow the work to be more visible to >> WG chairs, leaving the ADs to deal with errata where there are no WG, and >> then redirect it to an appropriate WG or XYZAREA-WG. >> Some of this could be done by directorates too. >> >> ADs are too valuable, and yet usually don't have the subject matter, >> and at this point, authors don't have any ability to act. > > Most of the time, if the authors reply back that an errata is (in)valid, I > am willing to act on it. More input from a WG list is better, of course, > but if I'm left to my own devices, I tend to only act on errata related to > technologies that I consider myself to already be an expert at. What about the rest? Particularly for security, one may wonder what the unprocessed (technical) errata are about, and what the impact may be. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
