Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 30 May 2023 20:08 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8C0C151539 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2023 13:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fakvQm8IKcVJ for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2023 13:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ADF5C15152E for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 May 2023 13:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1q45dL-0003xH-BG; Tue, 30 May 2023 16:07:55 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 16:07:42 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <2BC820F0D044274957F01097@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <e3248c00-ec2b-b6b3-cb3e-46261217bc30@amsl.com>
References: <CABcZeBOkf9Z_bAMcUroHd44DOmBa60=qq0u4V8EJPDU2tUoi4A@mail.gmail.com> <20230528172358.B9953DF9249C@ary.qy> <CABcZeBP9A7rYCZsJC9gVrxzMKLpiSBqJUjCX9VN7_mf0fDtv1w@mail.gmail.com> <125bbed2-7f3e-71c1-e26c-7e5f8c55bd2f@gmail.com> <D4C6C897EA2F505AC1DC2018@PSB> <e3248c00-ec2b-b6b3-cb3e-46261217bc30@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/gXdrrhSRYn68-MVW5nS79-0HOHs>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 20:08:02 -0000
--On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 09:55 -0500 Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> 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? 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? 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
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John Levine
- [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John Levine
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John R Levine
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Tim Wicinski
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John R Levine
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Bob Hinden
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John R Levine
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John C Klensin
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Salz, Rich
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Michael Richardson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John C Klensin
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John C Klensin
- [Tools-discuss] "Discuss this RFC" (was Re: Datat… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John Levine
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Michael Richardson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John C Klensin
- Re: [Tools-discuss] "Discuss this RFC" (was Re: D… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] "Discuss this RFC" (was Re: D… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata John C Klensin
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Martin Thomson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Robert Sparks
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Robert Sparks
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata Brian E Carpenter