Re: Processing errata for RFC 4648

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 03.01.2026 um 19:15 schrieb Salz, Rich:
> The RPC is working on a new errata site and, hopefully a new process. 
> Right now it seems to require an AD or a “trusted authority” like a WG 
> chair to make a recommendation that is followed.
> 
> I suggest you ask one of the WIT or ART AD’s to sponsor your draft.

There are two different questions here:

1) What does it take to process these two errata? IMHO the answer is: 
little; the author weighing in, an analysis, posting the outcome over 
here; waiting for feedback (there was no negative feedback AFAICT), then 
asking the RFC Editor to process these two. Now that the wheels are in 
motion, I would expect this to happen in the next few weeks if not days.

2) Whether and how to *revise* RFC 4648. This needs a venue (new 
short-lived WG?, where?) or a sponsoring AD. One venue to discuss this 
would be gendispatch 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/gendispatch/about/) which has a mailing 
list for discussion. Yes, it's desirable to present at an IETF meeting, 
but it *clearly* (emphasis intended) is not needed.

Just in case, I'm cc:ing the ADs for WIT and ART here.

Best regards, Julian