On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:49 AM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 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;-), and as a result my approach was
to leave errata alone unless one was discussed on one of my
WG's lists, or it was immediately apparent that the change
was good, or if someone other than the of the erratum mailed
me or a list to which I as subscribed (be that a WG
participant or RFC author or whomever) saying the erratum
was a good change.
It's worth noting that the way we present errata significantly decreases their usefulness, as they are not really that obvious when one reads the RFC. The inline errata display project would significantly increase the value of errata, and at least for me, would have increased the importance of processing them.
Dear IESG: can you report on the status of that project and when the tools/datatracker sites will show inline errata?
Thanks,
-Ekr
