[saag] Re: Time for some errata handling !

I didn't realize this had changed... nice.

And for documents for dead WGs - saag mailing list?

Later, Mike


On 3/4/2025 4:16 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 2:27 PM StJohns, Michael 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     I will note that that will limit people to answering errata only
>     for their current WGs. Or have to subscribe to new ones.
>
>
> The global allowlist ensures if you are subscribed to a single IETF 
> list, you can post to all the lists. So there is no need
> to subscribe to new ones. But also, it is perhaps better if those 
> people who are very familiar with the protocol and are
> subscribed to the list, handle the non-obvious erratas ?
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 14:25 StJohns, Michael
>     <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>         So one errata per message then?
>
>         On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 14:03 Paul Wouters
>         <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>             On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 1:35 PM StJohns, Michael
>             <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>                 Paul - a while back the AD created a google doc with
>                 the open errata and we edited that.  Perhaps that
>                 would work this time rather than spamming various groups?
>
>
>             That would work  too, but the spreadsheet was very
>             difficult to contain longer descriptions to be used for
>             the actual errata fileing by the AD.
>
>             Paul
>
>
>
>                 On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 12:00 Paul Wouters
>                 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>                     On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 11:20 AM Salz, Rich
>                     <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>                         we have 203 open errata. Please look at some
>                         in your area of expertise and help your ADs
>                         verifying / closing some of these.
>
>
>                     Either here or on the related WG email list.
>                     Errata can be lumped together, but if the reason
>                     is not 110% obvious, please do explain why you
>                     reached a conclusion. If one of the ADs just sees
>                     a list of "hold for document update", "verified",
>                     "rejected" - it is hard for us to act on as we
>                     then still need to understand the process that
>                     reached this conclusion.
>
>                     Paul
>
>                         How to do that – post email here? One/errata,
>                         or group a bunch in one message?
>
>                     _______________________________________________
>                     saag mailing list -- [email protected]
>                     To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]