IETF Logo Mail Archive

[core] [IANA #1264406] [Errata Verified] RFC7252 (4949)

Amanda Baber via RT <iana-matrix@iana.org> Tue, 31 January 2023 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FD7C15152B for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:46:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gb8ki4NQf38W for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.lax.icann.org (smtp.lax.icann.org [IPv6:2620:0:2d0:201::1:81]) (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 C2BF8C14F747 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from request6.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD0DE39F6; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:46:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by request6.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 97EC04B12E; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:46:09 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: amanda.baber
From: Amanda Baber via RT <iana-matrix@iana.org>
Reply-To: iana-matrix@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <20230118090722.C692B961FB@rfcpa.amsl.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-1264406@icann.org> <20230118090722.C692B961FB@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <rt-5.0.3-1694875-1675205169-1501.1264406-37-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #1264406
X-Managed-BY: RT 5.0.3 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
CC: hartke@tzi.org, core@ietf.org, Zach.Shelby@arm.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, cabo@tzi.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:46:09 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/ClSnTD4UQCqylzDsts2ho1WM6VE>
Subject: [core] [IANA #1264406] [Errata Verified] RFC7252 (4949)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:46:13 -0000

Hi,

Do the errata reports at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4949 or https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4948 need to be listed as additional references for any of the registrations made by RFC 7252?

You can find references to RFC 7252 in the following registries:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses
https://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers
https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes

thanks,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

On Wed Jan 18 09:07:44 2023, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote:
> The following errata report has been verified for RFC7252,
>  "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4949
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Verified
> Type: Technical
> 
> Reported by: Klaus Hartke <hartke@tzi.org>
> Date Reported: 2017-02-22
> Verified by: Francesca Palombini (IESG)
> 
> Section: 5.10.7
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> If any
> of these reserved option numbers occurs in addition to Location-Path
> and/or Location-Query and are not supported, then a 4.02 (Bad Option)
> error MUST be returned.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> If any
> of these reserved option numbers occurs in addition to Location-Path
> and/or Location-Query and are not supported, then the response MUST
> be rejected (Sections 4.2 and 4.3).
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The Location-* options are used in responses. A client cannot return a
> 4.02 (Bad Option) response in reply to a response. The correct
> behavior is to reject the response.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7252 (draft-ietf-core-coap-18)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
> Publication Date    : June 2014
> Author(s)           : Z. Shelby, K. Hartke, C. Bormann
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Constrained RESTful Environments APP
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email