[secdir] processing errata

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

As discussed in the SecDir lunch, we need help from the chairs and experts
to address the outstanding list of errata.  This means that we need the
chairs, experts, and in some cases WG to review submitted errata to
determine if the report correctly identifies an issue with the RFC or not.
Ideally, you would respond to the original email sent on the errata that
includes the RFC tools address, authors, chairs and ADs.  If you don't have
that original message, your recommendation on the errata could be sent to
Stephen and I for processing.

If the errata report is not correct, we'll need an explanation to include
with the rejection.  This can be text or can be a pointer to a mailing list
discussion of the errata.

If the errata is listed as technical and you think it is editorial, please
let us know that as well as ADs can make that change as the errata is
"processed".

In some cases, they will be quick to verify or reject and in others,
conferring with the RFC editors and WG will be necessary.

Here is the link to the errata page that lets you search by area:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

Here is background on actions taken with errata:
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html


If you are not a chair and want to help, that is welcome.  There are a
bunch that don't fall into WGs or the WG is now closed.  This may require
outreach to the editors.

Thank you!
-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen