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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 08 May 2021 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8220F3A0F01 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IBLqiNUHKN7k for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C5F53A0EFF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id m124so10267745pgm.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 May 2021 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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 [192.168.8.102] (122-56-207-232.mobile.spark.co.nz. [122.56.207.232]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u24sm7633218pga.78.2021.05.08.12.56.22 (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 <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <162040549861.22240.16336069769197991691@ietfa.amsl.com> <18d87dd8-3363-ef49-36f6-a34ff8c60e59@gmail.com> <30545.1620482040@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <26dd8249-0df7-2974-1a5e-8f590c3f6ff7@gmail.com>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Y125POPrZmIa_sEHjtnj2ngxSvg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > Does the IESG plan to catch up on old reported errata that have never been processed?
> 
>     > There are three here for example:
>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6275, 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.

    Brian