Re: Old Errata

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

On 2016-09-12 13:40, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 12/09/16 12:23, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Errata that does not attract interest could do so for many reasons. I
>> think we at least should make up our mind if they should be rejected.
>> If they are not they at least should be held for a future bis.
>
> That is reasonable, assuming "we" is the set of folks reading this
> thread.

Well - yes. But also if you are (the former) wg chair or the shepherd
for a document that have an errata listed I think that it is in your
own interest to have that errata responded to.

/Loa
>
> S.
>
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 12 sep. 2016, at 12:15, Stephen Farrell
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12/09/16 10:56, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The ADs might have to point to someone to resolve the (oldest)
>>>> errata. Or errata that belong to closed wg's.
>>>
>>> FWIW, for my WGs, I follow the practice of handling any errata for
>>> which someone shows interest. So if there're any that need to be
>>> processed, then please ping me, and/or a relevant mailing list and
>>> I'll take action. If, OTOH, nobody is interested, then that is also
>>> true of me:-)
>>>
>>> While other ADs may be more proactive than me, I think it's true
>>> that if pinged, ADs will generally take action.
>>>
>>> Cheers, S.
>>>
>>
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]