Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata

John C Klensin <> Tue, 30 May 2023 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8C0C151539 for <>; Tue, 30 May 2023 13:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fakvQm8IKcVJ for <>; Tue, 30 May 2023 13:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ADF5C15152E for <>; Tue, 30 May 2023 13:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) 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 <>
To: Jean Mahoney <>, Brian E Carpenter <>,
Message-ID: <2BC820F0D044274957F01097@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <20230528172358.B9953DF9249C@ary.qy> <> <> <D4C6C897EA2F505AC1DC2018@PSB> <>
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-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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 20:08:02 -0000

--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.


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.