[saag] Re: Time for some errata handling !

On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 5:37 PM Michael StJohns <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I didn't realize this had changed... nice.
>
> And for documents for dead WGs - saag mailing list?
>

Yes, unlike there is an obvious successor, eg IPsec -> IPsecME

Paul

>
> 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 <paul.wouters=
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 11:20 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
>>>>>> [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]