Re: [dhcwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6603 (3332)

Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Sun, 02 September 2012 14:57 UTC

Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <504350EE.7000301@innovationslab.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 17:57:40 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4530B20D-56B2-4293-AFA5-A531A768CE90@gmail.com>
References: <20120901121110.9372CB1E002@rfc-editor.org> <95AA3CFE-8839-4283-9B57-E9B05A31F5E4@gmail.com> <504350EE.7000301@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Cc: ot@cisco.com, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, dhcwg@ietf.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, ted.lemon@nominum.com
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6603 (3332)
Precedence: list

Brian,

I say it is easily recognized as a typo. The text in the option
introduction in Section 4.1 is very clear. So, ok with "hold for
document update".

- Jouni

On Sep 2, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:

> Hi Jouni,
>     I agree that this is an error.  The question is whether it can demonstrably cause an implementation error.  If it can, then it should be accepted.  If it is easily recognized as a typo, it should classified as "hold for document update".
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> On 9/2/12 8:03 AM, Jouni wrote:
>> 
>> The errata is correct and should be accepted. In section 4.1 it is
>> specifically stated that "There can be at most one OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE
>> option in one OPTION_IAPREFIX option."
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 1, 2012, at 3:11 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6603,
>>> "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation".
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6603&eid=3332
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Editorial
>>> Reported by: Gaurav Halwasia <ghalwasi@cisco.com>
>>> 
>>> Section: 4.2
>>> 
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>>   Any prefix excluded from the delegated prefix MUST be contained in
>>>   OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE options within the corresponding OPTION_IAPREFIX.
>>> 
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>>   Any prefix excluded from the delegated prefix MUST be contained in
>>>   OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option within the corresponding OPTION_IAPREFIX.
>>> 
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> As per this specification OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option is used to exclude exactly one prefix from a delegated prefix. So as per this specification only one instance of OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option can be present within OPTION_IAPREFIX.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC6603 (draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-04)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title               : Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation
>>> Publication Date    : May 2012
>>> Author(s)           : J. Korhonen, Ed., T. Savolainen, S. Krishnan, O. Troan
>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>> Source              : Dynamic Host Configuration
>>> Area                : Internet
>>> Stream              : IETF
>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>

[dhcwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6603 (3332) RFC Errata System
Re: [dhcwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6603 (… Jouni
Re: [dhcwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6603 (… Brian Haberman
Re: [dhcwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6603 (… Jouni