On 7/8/19 16:43, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Aug 6, 2019, at 14:48, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Skimming through some of the errata, some areas seem to have technical >> errata in their "Reported" Queue for over 5 years. > > Here is one more data point I forgot to mention: > > There is at least one standard by another SDO that references an RFC **together with some unhandled errata report** to describe how they are using and interpreting the RFC. > > I can’t remember where I saw this (sorry for not reporting it then), but I remember sitting there with an open mouth for a while. In particular since the errata report seemed wrong at the time to me. But I also thought we can’t blame the SDO; errata reports are presented in a quasi-official way by the RFC editor even before they are verified. > > TL;DR: Unhandled errata reports do hurt. +1 (Thanks for the data, btw!) -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
