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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg