Re: [bmwg] Favor: Confirm Errata 5207

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Tue, 19 December 2017 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D941270AB for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 05:36:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Ez7bJw1RPWRP for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 05:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67DF9127023 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 05:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049462.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vBJDZLB5044161; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:36:44 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2ey2h01up3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:36:44 -0500
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBJDahJe028266; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:36:43 -0600
Received: from dalint02.pst.cso.att.com (dalint02.pst.cso.att.com [135.31.133.160]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBJDadZn028244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:36:39 -0600
Received: from zlp30495.vci.att.com (zlp30495.vci.att.com [135.46.181.158]) by dalint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:32 GMT
Received: from zlp30495.vci.att.com (zlp30495.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30495.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 8D4F040002C7; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30495.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 6E7684000697; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBJDaVub021968; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:36:32 -0600
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (mail-green.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBJDaPEJ021585; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:36:25 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas2.research.att.com [135.207.255.47]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8BAE4AD2; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:35:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg4.research.att.com ([fe80::8cd:baa3:219e:5bd4]) by njmtcas2.research.att.com ([fe80::d550:ec84:f872:cad9%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:36:23 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
CC: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] Favor: Confirm Errata 5207
Thread-Index: AQHTeCojldxq6+I4r02d3maT83tvcaNJgTtwgABwX4CAAAihAIAAsWIQ
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF4907BD23@njmtexg4.research.att.com>
References: <CAHw9_iKmPer65KBoTBs-sim0ZY5mxJY14ts-FHBUFhnVHB9QCg@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF4907B984@njmtexg4.research.att.com> <CAHw9_iLpr3Oy1+6QcABZQvhP3_ZYqwGiqyWaAVVMDWAQciYviw@mail.gmail.com> <9A663BF0-CE45-483C-9788-641B22E63621@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <9A663BF0-CE45-483C-9788-641B22E63621@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [73.178.187.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-12-19_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1712190196
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/ayEx21JJEGujEQf9zwl1C2IW9vU>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Favor: Confirm Errata 5207
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:53 -0000

It occurs to me that I could put in a comparable errata
to fix the same sentence:

OLD
   The DUT SHOULD be able to respond to address resolution requests sent
   by the DUT wherever the protocol requires such a process.
NEW
   The tester SHOULD be able to respond to address resolution requests sent
   by the DUT wherever the protocol requires such a process.

and then we'll have both points recorded for update.

Is this your preferred course, Warren?
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucien Avramov [mailto:lucienav@google.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:59 PM
> To: Warren Kumari
> Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); bmwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bmwg] Favor: Confirm Errata 5207
> 
> Is it possible to try to submit Al’s suggestion and see if there are
> issues with avoiding a -bis? His context is important.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lucien
> 
> > On Dec 18, 2017, at 13:27, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:49 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> <acmorton@att.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Warren,
> >>
> >> I think the fix:
> >>
> >> OLD
> >>   The DUT SHOULD be able to respond to address resolution requests
> sent
> >>   by the DUT wherever the protocol requires such a process.
> >> NEW
> >>   The DUT SHOULD be able to respond to address resolution requests
> sent
> >>   by the tester wherever the protocol requires such a process.
> >>
> >> is fine, but it would suggest that
> >> NEW++
> >>   The tester SHOULD be able to respond to address resolution requests
> sent
> >>   by the DUT wherever the protocol requires such a process.
> >>
> >> is also needed, for symmetry.
> >>
> >
> > While I agree with you, that it likely larger than an Errata can
> > cover, and would likely need a -bis document... :-(
> > W
> >
> >> Al
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
> >>> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 1:00 PM
> >>> To: bmwg@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: [bmwg] Favor: Confirm Errata 5207
> >>>
> >>> Hi there all,
> >>>
> >>> This errata looks correct to me, but before I validate it I wanted
> to
> >>> ask the WG to confirm I'm not missing anything obvious.
> >>>
> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>> 2Deditor.org_errata_eid5207&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> >>>
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=bjjaUdU3P64iEA1Bgik69SjnzDG
> >>> 75gAiRQKHQje6bj8&s=AMJgPjE-e67R_B7CwNtTtd385iZHZryxhsF3IS_Sw3M&e=
> >>>
> >>> If I don't hear anything to the contrary I'll mark it verified on
> >>> Friday.
> >>>
> >>> W
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> >>> idea in the first place.
> >>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later
> expressing
> >>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> >>> of pants.
> >>>   ---maf
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> bmwg mailing list
> >>> bmwg@ietf.org
> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bmwg&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> >>>
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=bjjaUdU3P64iEA1Bgik69SjnzDG
> >>> 75gAiRQKHQje6bj8&s=67LX3SMcO-MP3Udz0Fe-zdJfPsMvHmhl73LQBBnvZwo&e=
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> > idea in the first place.
> > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> > of pants.
> >   ---maf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bmwg mailing list
> > bmwg@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bmwg&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=5204fHGyWNDbTF2RjS1WM2VVgqk
> 3zGyQwDrtBTRxa0E&s=Hf-dPvFb6GqU9N9vH6l-P4sC7xJZG03jvx6HYV7u-KA&e=