Subject: Re: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7601 (5435)
From: Peter Occil <[email-masked]>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <[email-masked]>, RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:54:17 -0400
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>

On further thought, it is indeed incorrect.  Therefore, the errata submission is withdrawn.

--Peter

From: Dale R. Worley
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 10:36 PM
To: RFC Errata System
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7601 (5435)

I think that the erratum is, strictly speaking, incorrect.  I've not
worked through examples in detail, but you can see that each propspec
contains exactly one "=" (other than in certain quoted contexts), which
makes it unlikely that two successive propspecs could be parsed as a
single propspec.  If there really is an ambiguity, the way to
demonstrate it is to provide an example.