Tony Hansen wrote:
Should our pre-evaluations provide an overview of known errata and how
they are going to be dealt with?
Alessandro's posting suggested that we have a subsection of section 2.4.
Some Cons:
Makes putting a pre-eval take slightly longer.
FWIW, I heuristically reasoned that given that there are two steps involved, there may be some advantages if the work is being divided more or less equally between them. However, I hadn't taken the trac tool into account. If WGLCs also concern issues of trac tickets linked to the relevant component, it could be enough to include links, in sections 2.4 and 2.5, that reflect the current WG's stance. If the authors deem more convenient to maintain trac tickets than pre-evaluation drafts, that is.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.