> There isn't any IESG decision for the errata processing phases.
Interesting.
When I click on any RFC number in the below errata link there is always
"IESG writeups" section containing the formal IESG approval.. In addition to that in the recent erratas there is also "IESG evaluation report":
Maybe just errata containing spelling errors could be approved by an AD alone, but to fundamentally change the meaning of the specification IMHO it would be pretty bad for IETF process to allow such shortcut.
Many thx,
R.
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:52 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Mr Raszuk,
At 02:36 PM 28-02-2020, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>His information about 6man AD not accepting the Errata: 5933 is
>correct. Errata must be first accepted by an AD then processed
>further. Since it was posted on 11th Dec 2019 it was still not
>accepted at first stage. You are mixing AD acceptance / validation
>with IESG decision. Those are completely different errata processing phases.
Once an erratum is reported [1], a report is automatically sent to
the Working Group Chair(s), the author(s) and the Area
Directors. The relevant Area Director ensures that there is adequate
review and the erratum is classified. There isn't any IESG decision
for the errata processing phases.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5646
