Re: Updated IESG Statement "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream"

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On May 8, 2021 at 6:53:46 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:


Bob:

Hi!

...
> I think something is needed where the reported problem can be accepted, but
> the fix can be rejected. Perhaps some new states, or a change to how the
> Errata system works.

You're right, *without proper explanation*, there is no explicit state
that indicates a valid problem and an invalid solution.  Hold for
Document Update is the closest as further discussion is obviously
needed.

However, even with a proper explanation, it may still be confusing
whether the proposed solution is valid or not.  One of the issues is
that there is a single notes field that is used by both the submitter
and the verifier.  Also, these notes appear *after* the
problem/solution have been described, making it harder to find
relevant comments.

Changing how the errata system works requires a wider discussion of
course -- beyond what the current statement is intended for.

Thanks!

Alvaro.