[dhcwg] Small mistake in RFC 3315?

Mateusz Ożga <matozga@gmail.com> Fri, 24 August 2012 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <matozga@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D96E21F8608 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N0V1De8KG9cJ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE4721F8602 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhr14 with SMTP id hr14so1098924wib.13 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ONc2r6fgK7NUWbkLPtlwsSFsj4SbZILjoMnUrCaO14U=; b=xkK+KPReG+OSymmvrUUqThyOMkgsCnjJh3Ti8MAuWlWV/P8EoLkz0b+r4mbhN+Rl+F OyQjYk/lz7mKC5uc1xQwFqZdTlPyCVpXiRIuN8aWdy+5qbYomMg+tresEZJM7zKbge2o jDmqoRDt4PmCmeKw37gvvYZpSu9bCldma+H7Ngnpi5YnR5vYigaXBf5759Sn94F9dqh6 f2H0494QmCRS1IvaunlQzlLaKZ0eqKVVhz4WCx8+VXa7x2zr6FNyDidlOzZDYmW5cvYs uAT0l/GV8OmzusR1ML1CQG9wUBw1QiNhAM2ZgZKD9Y+aZHNeOGBc2PoW1Rz1hWxbl4uK wxqA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.131.13 with SMTP id l13mr3426429wei.195.1345848579826; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.231.131 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:49:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAB8tVz0OPVrrVcogfdc66i9OAXwLnaoDNcSsZTmvRNPK=_2EzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mateusz Ożga <matozga@gmail.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6da98d385a49604c80aca26"
Subject: [dhcwg] Small mistake in RFC 3315?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:49:42 -0000

Hello,

I recently read RFC 3315 and I found a mistake in one place (in my opinion).

Section 22.5:

"Note that an IA has no explicit "lifetime" or "lease length" of its own.
When the valid lifetimes of all of the addresses in an IA_TA have expired,
the IA can be considered as having expired."

Should be:

"Note that an IA_TA has no explicit "lifetime" or "lease length" of its own.
When the valid lifetimes of all of the addresses in an IA_TA have expired,
the IA_TA can be considered as having expired."

This is mistake made by writing/forming RFC document?
Should I report errata for this?


Regards,
Mateusz