On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 06:13:08AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > 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? My understanding is that the code is done and waiting to be deployed. Alissa's note at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QDuj5ItTcY5nbVQVp7FMRjZiSZY may be the most authoritative thing I can point to right now. -Ben
