On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:22 AM Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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,
Not just the non-IETFer. I routinely work from the downloaded RFCs and even
when I go to the Web site, I don't click through to the errata.
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.
Having prepared a number of bis documents, I am of the opinion that this
is not a major part of the effort in doing so.
Like many things, this is a matter of cost and benefit, and if the benefit were
larger, then it would make the cost more worth bearing.
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.
I guess this is just a topic on which we'll have to disagree.
-Ekr
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
