[6lo] Errata ID: 4814

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 03 September 2021 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3833A2E06 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cb7hIRZWHzZ8 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oo1-xc32.google.com (mail-oo1-xc32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1DF3A2F79 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oo1-xc32.google.com with SMTP id e206-20020a4a55d7000000b00291379cb2baso84773oob.9 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 14:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J62wVbnWzQ7xgdFSI05LpfqKQWt36GrfHD+mdsWrGVU=; b=HZXCiqRCWjCWEKzECdILnYktShaTZ1FeHTCdyB6pvoudcNysqaL012tpp0U0GZoXNw VOg6i7rWWc5Zax8m/Nd8JBdYD2tAEdSyUPrVH75gND7dFQkazQj+gle08UR28xhSoWHv +6yNhq9RqgResE0F6eHWzrOWKkJkKZVi80Y4ScM20xjSlxZMMBk7YfA9aynASOh/I8z9 2HCyh15C8e7ySZfn4pswNBB/TIZkwK+xKycib2KWK/zXbEjrKDCW6NswOghW6f6dg9d0 MhE5rgzAwLNP46qHl7Kk5n/AZS4fJ1nyuSDXfbHGMBtsEJFffWQD4NyXNjPxrI9vXkYW 25Fw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J62wVbnWzQ7xgdFSI05LpfqKQWt36GrfHD+mdsWrGVU=; b=DE+NH3CKqaBfPKBI9T6Pm88/TMUfHeQztoTqftTDaMdcWcDiL3Li/gqDZahajiqg6R /SUXh+8JsG2VMYG6m91ko3crcDktfB49nHmVtsPf+qS+DbSROu7+eAeKlYpwLhXSzkUB flzGQYfHyLJElYZ9l/QSkmBmZo0QvNXHmSBkqqbZ3T/FdxiuqTNxkOBVqnNFnJc1FRJb EikZo9lDLTCpy+wXfBpFTeiOO7SFzC2y1IB/0A4TaT4yeGhYHPriFv9AtJvpO+HfE0lz zN+00WxvWd+44qkUnNHUlKxt9YmbLz214gZMrUjxTB/drjLAb4E0wedaES6AE4/9gSVU qXDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jW2eYOQYeeL4Fesb+6nfVTSnhI9Bqq88tsx6SAfexOKhOIu6u gTuEb2gOLk5rKSSaLTzSjib3O7AD1rbGGjXDlB7lD7prYQc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUuNfL4+46xX4xY6RhrcmGtbvSh+nr3XiJPud32McrK3DLFhUUqQm7pm0JTS48lF0vfnC/vfh/2ZvL1fjuFlw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:613:: with SMTP id e19mr4657927oow.67.1630704550012; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:28:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriXC2KrcPR30H9oK9cdTZy_GrbmBOBmmacWysxCp02zzZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org
Cc: 6lo@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006fea0f05cb1dfd86"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/bCUwBUFbxyfORIuqy5oWGBuwQR8>
Subject: [6lo] Errata ID: 4814
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 21:29:17 -0000

All,

I've been trying to catch up on and close all outside INT area errata.  In
so doing, I've come across:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4814

filed against RFC 6282.

My inclination is to reject this erratum, since 255 is in fact "used to
verify that a communication occurs over a single-hop", and this sentence
provides some background for the document treating 255 later on (section
3.1.1).

If anyone feels I've misread or misunderstood something do let me know.

Thanks,
-Erik