On 21-Dec-24 04:14, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 05:13 PM 19-12-2024, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why? What if it describes a serious problem? How do we know that the 4
open reports from 2010 are of no value without looking at them?
I doubt that a person would believe that the RFC Editor is taking the
2010 errata reports seriously if there wasn't any action on those
reports for the last 14 years. I would not describe a report which I
receive as being of no value.
The bug is that it isn't the RFC Editor that is responsible for taking
action, beyond notifying the stream. The new system needs to ensure that
there is a clear chain of responsibility (and probably some nagging
mechanism when no action occurs).
I note that most bug-fix fora have a possible end state of "won't fix".
There's no reason we can't have a "won't fix" equivalent for errata.
Such fora also usually have a "re-open" action if a "won't fix" bug
turns out to really matter. I think the analogy is quite strong.
If we replace "rejected" by "won't fix", then an error report from
2010 could be re-opened in 2030 if appropriate.
Regards,
Brian
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
