On May 23, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Michael Sweet <msw...@apple.com> wrote: > I've seen plenty of "pending" (not approved, not rejected) errata for other > RFCs for stuff like this. Posting to the ipv6 mailing list is useful for > people involved in RFC development but is completely opaque to ordinary > implementers of RFCs (which I have to deal with on a daily basis...)
We're trying to do a better job of responding to errata quickly—the rapidity of the rejection had nothing to do with the content of the report. If you look, you will find very few remaining un-examined errata. I've added an agenda item on the informal telechat today about how to address this problem. The IESG can't actually _address_ the problem—you will have to write the document—but hopefully we can come up with a way for you to get what you need in fewer than eight years. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
