Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata

Jean Mahoney <> Tue, 30 May 2023 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC8EC151B08 for <>; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5XniOLM13ffB for <>; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2357C151B03 for <>; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BF8424CD3C; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7AVoGc3QVpoP; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9168C424CD39; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 17:07:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: John C Klensin <>, Brian E Carpenter <>,
References: <> <20230528172358.B9953DF9249C@ary.qy> <> <> <D4C6C897EA2F505AC1DC2018@PSB> <> <2BC820F0D044274957F01097@PSB>
From: Jean Mahoney <>
In-Reply-To: <2BC820F0D044274957F01097@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 22:07:08 -0000


On 5/30/23 3:07 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 09:55 -0500 Jean Mahoney
> <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Some stats on the disposition of errata reports below --
>> ...
>>> I'm actually not sure.   Many of the errata I've seen have
>>> been spurious or basically change requests for the
>>> specification. Others have been corrections of trivial
>>> editorial or typographical errors.  Certainly the latter, and
>>> at least some of the former, may be indicative of what you
>>> described in a later note as "dull lives" and that I would
>>> describe as "too much time on their hands".  I have no idea
>>> what percentage of the total errata submissions fall into
>>> those categories; perhaps even a subjective impression (no
>>> elaborate data collection or analysis needed) from the RPC
>>> about the number of errata reports that are substantive,
>>> useful (i.e., not a protocol change request or equivalent),
>>> and that are resolved in a positive way (with neither "hold
>>> for document update" nor "rejected" counting as positive).
>> [JM] Of the non-spam errata reports that were processed in
>> 2022 (179 reports, including both technical and editorial),
>> 80% were Verified, 7% were Held for Document Update, and 12%
>> were Rejected. See [1] for definitions.
> Jean,
> Interesting, but not really helpful to the question I was trying
> to ask.  What would the breakdown be between technical and
> editorial?
[JM] In 2022, there were 157 Editorial and 203 Technical errata reports 
that were not junk.

> Of the editorial ones, what fraction were trivial
> (i.e., problems that probably would have been clear to most, if
> not all, readers and/or things that, even if not understood as
> intended, would have undermined basic understanding of the spec?
> Given that the boundary between the two is sometimes a bit
> fuzzy, if the RPC, rather than the reporter, was making the
> technical/editorial choice, how many of the reports would have
> changed category?
[JM] When an Editorial report is submitted, the RPC does an initial 
review and will handle it if it's clearly editorial. If the RPC cannot 
verify that the issue is in fact editorial, we change the type of report 
from Editorial to Technical and ask the stream manager (e.g., the AD) to 
verify the report. For some examples of errata reports originally 
reported as Editorial, see [1] and [2].

In 2023 so far, we have updated the type from Editorial to Technical for 
14 reports, which is 22% of the non-spam Editorial reports submitted 
(63). The 2022 numbers above reflect the current, not the originally 
submitted, type.

Best regards,


> And, of course, all of these, regardless of category or outcome,
> take up the time of you and your colleagues, the IESG, and
> authors, etc.
> best,
>     john