Re: [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch and updates to RFC 5261
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 22 March 2013 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A7621F8E72 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LwBiqn2bUiKF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79F421F8E6B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.tekelec.com ([4.30.77.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r2MFxU2S028076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:59:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <514C7FE2.9020405@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:59:30 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org>
References: <5124D91C.1000703@berkeley.edu> <000901ce1023$3c4b7140$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <51263634.7040906@berkeley.edu> <015e01ce1052$3098b540$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <5128ED20.6030502@berkeley.edu> <512E1574.50504@berkeley.edu> <015c01ce15c9$17585dc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAC4RtVCEsO58tSNc1uuhgZuXsBQjegm=zC_8XnWbfjOspgQT8w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCEsO58tSNc1uuhgZuXsBQjegm=zC_8XnWbfjOspgQT8w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 4.30.77.1 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch and updates to RFC 5261
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:59:31 -0000
On 2/28/13 9:51 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> You posted errata against RFC5261, an RFC which was produced by simple. >> Therefore notification of the errata went to the simple WG mailing list >> which was shut down two days ago so your good work has found a very >> effective black hole. > ... >> Normally, the AD picks up an erratum and runs with it but since the WG >> has shut down, doubtless the ADs have as well, so you will need to find >> a friendly AD elsewhere > This is nonsensical. > > Errata are associated with the area that the document was produced > in.[1] Even if the RFC came from an individual submission (no WG) or > from a WG that has closed (recently, or years ago), the ADs for the > area the report is assigned to will see it, and will eventually deal > with it. The IESG has been putting more emphasis, over the past > couple of years, on handling errata and keeping the number left at > "Reported" to an absolute minimum. > > The RAI ADs will deal with this one, I'm sure. Just to confirm - these have not gone into a black hole. > > Barry > > > [1] Errata against very old RFCs can get into a sort of "black hole" > situation if they are not assigned to an area. That's not an issue in > this case. > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
- [apps-discuss] process and editing questions: RFC… Erik Wilde
- Re: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions:… t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions:… Erik Wilde
- Re: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions:… t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions:… Erik Wilde
- Re: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions:… t.petch
- [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch and updates … Erik Wilde
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch and upda… t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch and upda… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch and upda… Robert Sparks