Re: [core] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7959 (6083)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

indeed, we should probably align the usage of the tables over the different RFCs in their respective future document updates (currently upper or lower case X or repetition of the column label for yes, minus or space for no).  It should be obvious that minus is another way to say no from RFC 7252, so there is no potential for confusion; the second note therefore is redundant.

My verdict is “hold for document update”.

Grüße, Carsten


> On 2020-04-09, at 21:00, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7959,
> "Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6083
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 2.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
>       | No. | C | U | N | R | Name   | Format | Length | Default |
>       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
>       |  23 | C | U | - | - | Block2 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
>       |     |   |   |   |   |        |        |        |         |
>       |  27 | C | U | - | - | Block1 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
>       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
> 
>                       Table 1: Block Option Numbers
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
>       | No. | C | U | N | R | Name   | Format | Length | Default |
>       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
>       |  23 | x | x | - |   | Block2 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
>       |     |   |   |   |   |        |        |        |         |
>       |  27 | x | x | - |   | Block1 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
>       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
> 
>                       Table 1: Block Option Numbers
> 
> Notes
> -----
> * This is to align with the conventions in Section 5.10 of RFC7252
> * These options are not repeatable as per:
> 
> "Either Block option MUST NOT occur more than once in a
>   single message."
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum 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  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7959 (draft-ietf-core-block-21)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
> Publication Date    : August 2016
> Author(s)           : C. Bormann, Z. Shelby, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Constrained RESTful Environments
> Area                : Applications and Real-Time
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG