Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4427 (1835)

Vishwas,

	The errata system is somewhat erratic.  Changes that are not
absolutely necessary tend to discredit/devalue the utility of the
(already easy to ignore) errata process.

	If we had to make a change (to clarify what is understandably
not very clear) it would be better to reduce the redundancy.  I'd 
offer as a possibly better "fix" -

	Replace "(M, N > 1, N >= M)" with "(N >= M > 1)"

- which is what I think you're now suggesting as well.

	But that brings us back to the point - is this change really
necessary at all?

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:59 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: RFC Errata System; eric.mannie@perceval.net; dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be; rcallon@juniper.net; adrian.farrel@huawei.com; lberger@labn.net; dbrungard@att.com; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4427 (1835)
Importance: High

Hi Eric,

Now I see it that way. However I got confused as "," is a seperator
both for multiple conditions as well as multiple elements in a
condition.

The best way would be to put it would be only one condition (same for
the other Errata):

N >= M > 1.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Eric Gray<eric.gray@ericsson.com> wrote:
> In this case, the additional "M > 1" is redundant, since the parenthesized
> statement starts by stating that _both_ M and N are reater than 1 - i.e. -
> "M, N > 1" equates to "M > 1, N > 1"
>
> The text referred to is correct as is.
>
> --
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:03 PM
> To: eric.mannie@perceval.net; dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be; rcallon@juniper.net; adrian.farrel@huawei.com; lberger@labn.net; dbrungard@att.com
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4427 (1835)
>
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4427,
> "Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4427&eid=1835
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
>
> Section: 6.3
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> 6.3. M:N (M, N > 1, N >= M) Protection
>
>
>   M:N protection has N working LSPs/spans carrying normal traffic and M
>   protection LSP/span that may carry extra-traffic.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> 6.3. M:N (M, N > 1, N >= M > 1) Protection
>
>
>   M:N protection has N working LSPs/spans carrying normal traffic and M
>   protection LSP/span that may carry extra-traffic.
>
> Notes
> -----
> M > 1 is added
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC4427 (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-06)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
> Publication Date    : March 2006
> Author(s)           : E. Mannie, Ed., D. Papadimitriou, Ed.
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>