On 7/8/19 16:13, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:49 AM Stephen Farrell > <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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. While the non-IETFer may be unaware about the errata system, and simply work from the RFC repo, processing the errata is important for at least two reasons: 1) It relieves the folk that *Are* aware about the system to have to figure out by themselves which of the reported errata make sense, and which don't. 2) It serves as a basis for working on bis documents, or even triggering bis documents. Yes, having the tool you're referring to may be valuable. However, I don't think it realy affects the importance of processing the errata. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
