On 2/3/20 11:16, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
[...]
The summary provides by the Working Group Chair states that the
Responsible Area Director "has not accepted the related errata".  I
took a quick look at erratum eid5933; it is listed as "Reported".  As
the erratum has not been classified as per the relevant IESG
Statement, describing it as "not accepted" is inaccurate.

The email from Suresh that I had cited in support of my statement, seemed and 
still seems clear to me.

What was not clear to you in Suresh's email?

  I will process this and move it to the "Hold for Document Update" state
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tRn94-NlupHLcWdzo7O9BfHpiik/

Just to be clear, I believe that your stated decision of processing this errata as 
"Hold for document update" is not only incorrect, but also doesn't represent 
the consensus this working group got during the rfc2460bis effort -- now RFC8200.
[...]
  > As such, I will formally Appeal your decision.

Please do go ahead. I stand by my assessment that this is a misuse of the Errata 
process and it is not a simple clarification as you claim."
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yVKxBF3VnJQkIRuM8lgWN4_G3-o/


Please take another look now. Suresh has updated the status of the errata. I 
guess that your point is now moot.

It's not moot that you based your decision on wg consensus on something that had not yet happened. The fact that the errata was marked as "held for document update" days *after* you made your decision should be a datapoint.

Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1



_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to