Hi, Benoit,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Benoit Claise (bclaise)
<bclaise(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Stephen,
I always considered that the "ping" was precisely the errata report.
It probably was, when the errata was filed. For NFSv4, that was
approximately 3 responsible ADs ago :-) ...
I did a sucky job of chasing errata during my first term, but I think I've
asked for guidance on all the errata for my current working groups, unless
I knew what to do with them, in which case, I did something with them.
I've gotten good responses on some, and not on others, which isn't
surprising in a volunteer organization, I guess.
Spencer, the current AD for nfsv4 :-)
Regards, Benoît
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
Date: 12/09/2016 12:16 (GMT+01:00)
To: Loa Andersson <loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu>, Yoav Nir
<ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, IETF
Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Old Errata
On 12/09/16 10:56, Loa Andersson wrote:
The ADs might have to point to someone to resolve the (oldest) errata.
Or errata that belong to closed wg's.
FWIW, for my WGs, I follow the practice of handling any
errata for which someone shows interest. So if there're
any that need to be processed, then please ping me, and/or
a relevant mailing list and I'll take action. If, OTOH,
nobody is interested, then that is also true of me:-)
While other ADs may be more proactive than me, I think
it's true that if pinged, ADs will generally take action.
Cheers,
S.