Re: [CCAMP] Opinions please FW: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7139 (3930)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 24 March 2014 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842A21A0077 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 UszO1ijI4Z88 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 83FDD1A0070 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29697 invoked by uid 0); 24 Mar 2014 00:35:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2014 00:35:29 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id hCbK1n00A2SSUrH01CbNt2; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:35:28 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=F57EKMRN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=Tvs_GUuyyx4A:10 a=MXWVvg_tfUoA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8 a=i0EeH86SAAAA:8 a=dTQqj_asAAAA:8 a=0FD05c-RAAAA:8 a=EeMhvEcYAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=AEDFM0qtAAAA:8 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=b7HqnK2iSjL94kzHyGYA:9 a=fyMVVrmoXvNXUrFB:21 a=SbSUWLu0yI6gFLQQ:21 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=mhd2NDuUijAA:10 a=1eQkaoUQ5BgA:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=f7GxY0FH8QIA:10 a=WR2v7rZNYJgA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=jqlaW5bC1iAA:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=qnVRWguKDRPaL0W2GFUm9DoMaMX7ADmgdWbg0zNZS6w=; b=MHuVLH72VyHrfKeoqmRcGkI4tmZxKUextQGk7UK3c1CZ5XU8bUyU0Thejr2GFVhJ+cOAy2r7wOnshg69//IR0fCXpWGd2rL6t4qHiVOzNxQDi+gHDb5uwi1Zys8k64GB;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:56572 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1WRsrH-0007Cj-K6; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:35:19 -0600
Message-ID: <532F7DC4.6090807@labn.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 20:35:16 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, ccamp@ietf.org
References: <002101cf46e4$a0839720$e18ac560$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <002101cf46e4$a0839720$e18ac560$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/YVxUIQiDvQsl4LatO2FnLkRP2T4
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Opinions please FW: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7139 (3930)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:35:34 -0000

Adrian,
    I have to say that I really think you are making a pure language
style point.  I personally would not have phrased the original text the
way it was written, but I try very hard in document reviews to avoid
pure stylistic changes.  -- In short, I think authors/editors should
have stylistic latitude, and generally defer to the RFC editor to make
any required stylistic changes. Of course, this latitude does not extend
to technical errors or imprecision.  Unless I'm misreading your change,
I think it is a purely stylistic revision and I'd recommend rejecting it
as an Editorial errata. 

Of course, had you made this comment before publication I would have
supported a change (although I would have tweaked the specific language
slightly.)

Lou

PS I think making a habit of discussing errata before verification is a
good one, no matter who submits the issue.

On 3/23/2014 6:09 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Before I get into the habit of raising and verifying errata reports myself,
> could some of you look at this and check that I am right.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
>> Sent: 23 March 2014 22:04
>> To: zhangfatai@huawei.com; zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn;
>> sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.it; daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com;
>> kpithewan@infinera.com; akatlas@gmail.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk;
>> lberger@labn.net; dbrungard@att.com
>> Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; ccamp@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>> Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7139 (3930)
>>
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7139,
>> "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport
>> Networks".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7139&eid=3930
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>>
>> Section: 3
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>    [RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control
>>    for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification.  However, [RFC7096]
>>    does not provide the means to signal all the new Signal Types and
>>    related mapping and multiplexing functionalities.  Moreover, it
>>    supports only the deprecated auto-MSI (Multiframe Structure
>>    Identifier) mode, which assumes that the Tributary Port Number (TPN)
>>    is automatically assigned in the transmit direction and not checked
>>    in the receive direction.
>>
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>    [RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control
>>    for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification.  However, as
>>    described in[RFC7096], that document does not provide the means to
>>    signal all the new Signal Types and related mapping and multiplexing
>>    functionalities.  Moreover, it supports only the deprecated auto-MSI
>>    (Multiframe Structure Identifier) mode, which assumes that the
>>    Tributary Port Number (TPN) is automatically assigned in the transmit
>>    direction and not checked in the receive direction.
>>
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> RFC 7096 is the analysis of pre-existing GMPLS signalling. It does not contain
> any
>> protocol extensions itself, but looks at the mechanisms provided in RFC 4328.
>>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC7139 (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-12)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709
> Optical
>> Transport Networks
>> Publication Date    : March 2014
>> Author(s)           : F. Zhang, Ed., G. Zhang, S. Belotti, D. Ceccarelli, K.
> Pithewan
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Common Control and Measurement Plane
>> Area                : Routing
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>