IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ecrit] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5031 (6359)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 22 December 2020 03:26 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02853A0962 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:26:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3vLPBlP7d4wz for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:26:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-f47.google.com (mail-lf1-f47.google.com [209.85.167.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B3193A094E for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:26:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-f47.google.com with SMTP id a12so28668557lfl.6 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:26:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hQRE/ZkQfGX2patyWyhPXRcsXrqGCg96DtV9Gh3yD7Q=; b=IZHI0sCyn630sQgXwI9oL3QDU9WBeq0LrwHQDQwB0LtbymOjgldUfHraW6Q6T/S3jO j7F+9vPJS+mmtSjCJw8XTt4EGhYjgC5FS+qphy3SqlKuOVyL8i9upTvoSOR/223/7PWP 4aJSVC8WKWnnqbZ8qRuMawbPlAHtxCwWj5K99qk324vzFrdSyPPlJe6QoALf0FIS7g2G MquhON2KJ85CBN4JzEOQle/NxIrXJ9flhPygklfafyU+fkbSNlYPhtK3tOb/r672QqIy JGJjNpssnwANCZdzh53kBg7Apuo3x9w1U7yxb7er3WQeICrsvP98GcAVXAGxIDyiQa/c al/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ELoexU1XG0w1LnSrsfW3E0k96e6YTxKXUYyTC+y/Bx44gEvO7 RL/waJlqvud32eLrklzhs/BASVCl8QKk+7JBLx8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZvEg1wLZVsC1a22q81y8li/+pnDsbogfO7hXt37ynpdu1anzh+9xcjhB+ag00fNPL7t9vsZA2NYuvJOFPmcI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9756:: with SMTP id f22mr8610715ljj.65.1608607604422; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:26:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJLEZcD2KouGoJecHMRpW7wnfoQCdkeUoZ0oRo47EqYXAg@mail.gmail.com> <87r1nir1y6.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <87r1nir1y6.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 22:26:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJJoO7qshvSCohB5SoJ_3=DrSD1X-g637DBRQ=jTm_aP7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Cc: allison.mankin@gmail.com, ecrit@ietf.org, hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, roger.marshall@comtechtel.com, superuser@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d83a4705b705242a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/-p7Ex73TVnPNtoLd6G3g6PcHzVY>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5031 (6359)
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 03:26:48 -0000

Oh, nothing improper at all about including a reference, and if we were
writing or revising the document now we might well include it.  This is
just an errata-process issue, nothing more.

Barry

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 9:48 PM Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com> wrote:

> Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> writes:
> > I’m quite sure this isn’t really “errata”, though, in that there was
> never
> > an intent to include a reference that explains the background of why it’s
> > called “sos”.  And while the reference might be good for amusement, it
> > doesn’t relate to this usage... the RFC itself explains everything
> > necessary, and the only thing the reference adds is a pointer to why it’s
> > called “sos”.
>
> Well, y'all can do whatever you want, of course.  Personally, I've
> always wanted to know the history of the standardization of "SOS", and I
> see nothing improper to providing a reference to the first standard
> specifying "SOS", which is actually why that combination of letters is
> used in the RFC.
>
> Dale
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email