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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 08 May 2021 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8220F3A0F01 for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IBLqiNUHKN7k for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C5F53A0EFF for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m124so10267745pgm.13 for <>; Sat, 08 May 2021 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3av3jVD/9zTdLBJJAFRg1sJDsWhNl73S6U484WcWNto=; b=lKEGChVDBwouBZITR16Rq1Yv3WnhbCqG4pZesuUOm/5uIlhFaXQbp31Fei9RXKdO8g kq+0vaAM+bLeqm1mzkmQPLWDAe44RNZfDcWf/zCH7Ntadv0lJ2BSJ3Wvsw2sNgLD/Mcu SqVNK0FnAKQYalU12VxX1VkGRkvlDqhndKytbOy4MH+BsC17t4hp8vgUOIMwVMLlHr1P JignS2fu8PEP9Y/DstElDDkH9IKAAZ6cYXR286aoVKBnI1mU0JawMczc1I9Ae49q/ioY u7vdHIG85BHRyk2yzyowDWzsLoUMFsVf4oixwtYwk7FX7D3kAqaWGwvDATbGiJZEDM+J nOGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3av3jVD/9zTdLBJJAFRg1sJDsWhNl73S6U484WcWNto=; b=Kga/JZneKKxVCZGgJcv7dY8MeLRij2gVBKtXYYVsD6xtewugP+Ifs/U0bscsOfgfxn 2CYvGJMNDUNaIMF2gltYnc3jXvdWgdZOVMoivf+deWeyXxdMYvAIWzD3PR+4AUGUhEfQ /Zb1yQPnUCfZk29eWjuC9fyOGXnWXYTARpruBax5hCrMRwEQG6kd20o8pNg3JVhPVyzZ i4+T/bUQOj/KnC+MSEw01NLNxU8r5486KgFveaKDzNQgR/kBhW8LcS6Svx8ZxFR3x9ax wP34AaRZ60jBprb+wmtbZ+6AiV7L98jvvO6g244BQEXDOYPB3TTc5Ky8lu2Ess9nrTOu r39g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304emnppCPgfdiBGaDto7j54YBc56nMLJD84CIcRqJ8NPNtovjb a51GzBE6O2jTA/HMCvYzwdL2rHOdX9R7lQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzm93L5B9I4FupFEqo7Gz4vncoOXc/nagsIXwCmFmjHmYfDwMAuRmcQBKLe7R3bIsFGWXTXIQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:8fcd:0:b029:2ac:9a4d:930e with SMTP id n196-20020a628fcd0000b02902ac9a4d930emr7782367pfd.61.1620503784882; Sat, 08 May 2021 12:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id u24sm7633218pga.78.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 08 May 2021 12:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Updated IESG Statement "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream"
To: Michael Richardson <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <> <30545.1620482040@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 07:56:19 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30545.1620482040@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 19:56:30 -0000

On 09-May-21 01:54, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>     > Does the IESG plan to catch up on old reported errata that have never been processed?
>     > There are three here for example:
>     >, as much as 4 years
>     > old. There may be a lot more lurking.
> We need to fix the tooling to delegate to WG chairs to propose actions.

Yes, except when the WG no longer exists.

> Maybe we want ADs to confirm (like milestones), but I don't think we'll ever
> deal with backlog until we can easily keep up with current efforts.

I'm sure that's true too.

Dare I suggest monthly nag messages, to the WG chairs if they exist, or to the responsible AD otherwise? Or a least, a page that lists all unprocessed errata and their age in days. At the moment I think we don't even know the size of the backlog.