Hi all,
On 12/18/24 9:06 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 19/12/2024 02:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I also don't think that the current errata system really creates a
big workload. We have a big backlog, but that seems to be due to
low prioritization (and I think that's a collective error).
I think that's an erroneous diagnosis of the problem. The current
system is so bad, for all concerned, it causes most people to
de-prioritise errata processing would be my take.
[JM] I have heard from many verifiers that it is difficult to build the
context to evaluate a report for an RFC that the verifier is not
familiar with. This task gets harder with older RFCs that no longer have
active working groups or reachable authors.
What can a new system do to help a verifier process these reports?
Should the system not allow reports on Legacy / Historic / Obsolete
RFCs? That would reduce verifier burden and could be turned into a
policy statement. [With my RPC hat on: We should attempt to treat RFCs
as uniformly as possible. Note that obsolete RFCs can still be widely
implemented. Switching to my personal hat: We should encourage readers
to read the newer RFCs. We should reduce attractive nuisances. For
example, Legacy RFCs receive far more junk reports.]
There seems to be an unwritten policy that if the verifier can't verify
a report, they have to keep the report open until somebody (e.g., the
next AD) figures out. The current final statuses (Verified, Rejected,
Hold For Document Update) may encourage keeping reports open. That is, a
verifier may not feel comfortable rejecting a report if they can't say
with certainty that the report was incorrect.
A new way to close a report might help: "Closed - insufficient
information". The verifier asked for assistance, but didn't receive any.
The request and non-answer would need to be visible in some way (a link
to a mail or issue thread in the report's notes). A policy statement
here would be along the lines of "If the verifier cannot verify the
report after asking for assistance, the verifier may close the report."
To deal with the backlog, should we just close reports that have been
open for a long time? The definition of "long time" would need to be
determined. Or should the RPC host a hackathon at an upcoming IETF
meeting where verifiers work through as many open reports as possible?
We could bring pizza :-)
Thanks!
Jean
We should chuck
it out and replace it entirely.
Cheers,
S.
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
