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

I agree with you.  Sos is a convenient, well understood term used for emergencies and we don’t need a reference for it.  So, I would recommend “Reject”

Brian

> On Dec 19, 2020, at 3:43 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Dale, and thanks for taking the time to file this.
> 
> 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”.
> 
> So unless the working group (which is CCed here) thinks it’s worth making this “Held For Document Update”, I’m inclined to mark it “Rejected”.  Anyone ecrit working group denizens care to comment?
> 
> Barry
> 
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 2:49 PM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5031,
> "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency and Other Well-Known Services".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6359 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6359>
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com <mailto:worley@ariadne.com>>
> 
> Section: 4.2, 7.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> In section 4.2:
> 
> The 'sos' service type describes emergency services requiring an
> immediate response, typically offered by various branches of the
> government or other public institutions.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> In section 4.2, add a reference:
> 
> The 'sos' service type describes emergency services requiring an
> immediate response, typically offered by various branches of the
> government or other public institutions. [IRC]
> 
> In section 7.2, add a reference:
> 
> [IRC] Service Regulations annexed to the International Radiotelegraphic
> Convention, Berlin, 1906, section 6. a., article XVI.
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044103239133&view=1up&seq=36 <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044103239133&view=1up&seq=36>
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The referenced section of the protocols of the convention is "Ships in distress make use of the following signal: . . . - - - . . .  repeated at short intervals. ...".
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5031 (draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-07)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency and Other Well-Known Services
> Publication Date    : January 2008
> Author(s)           : H. Schulzrinne
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies RAI
> Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit