On 07/08/2019 13:06, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 7/8/19 14:49, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 07/08/2019 12:31, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
Some ADs simply don't think errata is useful. I handled some, but worked
with ADs who didn't care about them.
I guess I was one of those:-) I wouldn't say I considered
errata as not being useful, but I do consider most errata
are not useful and many are hugely time-consuming (it can
take an hour to acquire enough context to decide if moving
that comma is ok or not;-),
That may apply to editorial errata, but not to *techical* errata.
That doesn't mean that the errata might be of use, but it would seem to
me that it would be due dilligence to at least process the *technical*
errata.
Basically, I took silence as indicative of unimportance as
I didn't have time to process 'em all. And the world didn't
end, but yes the queue built up some more.
So another way to improve this might be to put new errata
into a "probably nobody cares right now" queue until it is
apparent that someone other than the poster of the erratum
cares that the change is good and ought be visible.
Isn't part of IETF's mission to maintain its protocols? If nobody cares
about submitted errata, that would make one one wonder about the extent
to which that pat of the mission can be accomplished.
At that
point an erratum could be moved into the "for processing"
queue. A WG later developing a bis draft could consider
those "nobody cared" errata just as much as ever, but in
the meantime they'd not bother the rest of the world (which,
again, would not end:-).
What I would expect is that, as with reported software vulnerabilities,
technical errata are processed, asap. It is not that the reporter is
telling you "review your spec, there is a bug, and i won't tell you
why", but normally the problematic text is quoted, and a solution proposed.
Get the author of the spec to process it, and/or else the wg chairs,
and/or the relevant wg, or, why not, a set of people from the Acks
section. Complete AD processing my happen as a last resort...
I agree with Fernando here. We have a duty to maintain our protocols.
It is a dereliction of duty by the IESG if they fail to resolve the
errata, which after all are assigned to them, in a timely manner.
If the IESG would prefer some method other than addressing them
themselves, it is in their gift to implement a method or process for
addressing them.
For example, a small group of competent area specialists sitting
together at the equivalent of a hackathon table ought to be able to
dispatch significant number, and where they could not, they could craft
the right set of questions to gather the necessary information to
resolve the issue.
- Stewart
