Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Esko,

Okay, I can add a clarification to the errata to indicate that RFC 2119 language is not required for the text to still be normative, and if this text is updated, the other sections should be updated in a consistent fashion.

An alternative resolution here is for me to reject the errata, indicating that the text is still a normative requirement even though it doesn’t use RFC 2119 language.  Specifically, I don’t think that the existing text is wrong, but consistently using RFC 2119 keywords may add clarity.

Regards,
Rob


From: Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 15 January 2024 at 11:06
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>, Buschart, Rufus <[e-mail]>, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>, Max Pritikin (pritikin) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)
Thanks Rob,

Not sure if the 7263 got discussed on the call (probably not), but the discussion thread on it leads to your current proposal and I’m okay with that.

Just on the side, I’m still wondering if this is helping overall, because for other fields there is similar wording used like “X is included”  and in those other cases we don’t have errata to change these to a MUST.   And all these requirements are effectively MUST. But maybe such consistency isn’t so important. The language in the given context may be just more unclear to some readers, for some fields/parameters.

Esko


From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 11:44
To: Buschart, Rufus <[e-mail]>; Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; Max Pritikin (pritikin) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)

Hi,

I’m attempting to work through my errata backlog.

For errata 7263, it looks like this was going to be discussed.  Did this happen, and if so, what was the outcome please?

My currently proposal is to edit the errata to change the “SHOULD BE” to “MUST be” and then mark the errata as HFDU.  Does anyone have any opinions on this resolution?

Regards,
Rob


From: Buschart, Rufus <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:11 AM
To: Esko Dijk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Max Pritikin (pritikin) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)

Hi!

I do have a PTO today and will not be able to dial in ;-)

Best regards

Rufus
________________________________
From: Esko Dijk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:55:46 AM
To: Buschart, Rufus (IT IPS SIP) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)

Thanks Rufus, we even should have a call today at 17:00 CET - call-in details are here (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fanima%2FF2Ojytj9qoxlE4XSjtMwXMf8oFs%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Crufus.buschart%40siemens.com%7C7833dd970f1b4580cfd908dadcdf735a%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638065150467953304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=y1S2VmOjEyl6pW13kGRnzjCJTBDS%2BAZx22m9TgliFi8%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/F2Ojytj9qoxlE4XSjtMwXMf8oFs/>)

Maybe we could also briefly discuss the difference between "X does Y" versus "X MUST do Y" in an RFC, since no-one dared to comment on that yet ;-)

Regards
Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: Buschart, Rufus <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 22:23
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Esko Dijk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)

Hello all!

Thank you for working so intensively on my errata. I was invited by one of Siemens's representatives in the ANIMA WG to join your call next week. I hope I'll be able to make it and would be very happy to work with you on my proposed errata.

And btw: I would love to have MUSTs in both paragraphs but didn't dare to propose this 😉

/Rufus



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: Monday, 12 December 2022 21:52
> To: Esko Dijk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Buschart, Rufus (IT IPS SIP)
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263)
>
>
> Esko Dijk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     > The worry I have here is that by the time we get to the document update
>     > people may not be around anymore to remember why the 'SHOULD'
> ought to
>     > be a 'MUST' and then the wrong change will be made.
>
> okay.
>
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     > If the errata is "Hold for Doc Update" then the RFC editor won't
>     > automatically apply the diff.  I'm pretty sure that is only ever done
>     > for verified errata.
>
> so, let's mark it this way for now.
>
>     > There are also notes that can go along with the errata to give further
>     > information (e.g., what the proposed long-term resolution is) if that
>     > is helpful.
>
> If have consensus for the next text, then I think the RFC-editor site can do
> the patch process, though, when we mark it as verified.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>