Re: [bmwg] Favor: Confirm Errata 5207

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Warren, that's very efficient wording.
My hat is off to you! (I know you like hats)
Happy New Year,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:29 PM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Cc: Lucien Avramov; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [bmwg] Favor: Confirm Errata 5207
> 
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:36 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> So, I let this stew for as while (I was supposed to submit it on
> Friday).
> I ended up going with:
> "The DUT and tester SHOULD both be able to respond to address
> resolution requests wherever the protocol requires such a
> process."
> 
> This seems sufficiently clear, and only required a minor change to the
> text.
> W
> 
> 
> > Al
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lucien Avramov [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:59 PM
> >> To: Warren Kumari
> >> Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); [e-mail]
> >> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:49 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> >> <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Warren
> Kumari
> >> >>> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 1:00 PM
> >> >>> To: [e-mail]
> >> >>> 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
> >> >>> [e-mail]
> >> >>> 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
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > 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=
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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