Re: [Edm] Some thoughts on Sep 1 meeting, Issue 1

Vijay Gurbani <> Wed, 09 September 2020 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376D93A0CF2 for <>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 08:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yn-DqzLzLq8d for <>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 08:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339603A0CF0 for <>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 08:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c10so3011110edk.6 for <>; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 08:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YhLwKmVNeWie4aMCXHiyJvJUXKjTW4IumHh18gTbRnA=; b=FUQoaSd0H0Ha8Du3ockf5+VJxzCTuZLRVUKItsSOw6i4sRH/3rgv+ntGMFEv/3vcba 3gqOYlzhfa6MIw5dAoelql3JSpP7NhfGGXanwVmzQmTIwldukZDZWVwyoqJYA7KMLU6d PEquCoL+fzsZkzbVWHG5z8s6FFXChV+Q+bQrDSj0XPuXdJC/QMc4jadZC9YnsGtRhV1y Feiv9eQmWBe+H1mCkywUhlDZtNjQyO0Ln6OWaWWHec9//L9HxIwPFTGzGWXrL9B37fUR Qy21N4cfUQOUbTJ5HSjSW8tt/aEKyGMlMk4PmLUHCf2erKbaSIHOptOnngMX0S1GEKEb KHRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YhLwKmVNeWie4aMCXHiyJvJUXKjTW4IumHh18gTbRnA=; b=Y0FG8G3O/RmF2R/9b0U6C9YKVN20pe34g8Q4hy30cGb+fQVsoQF5og25Q/loLf8tLZ IjIlSnGihwRlBqGCxBQQgo9ZTfglgc4zwLWvaFWjdK0RP3KViGOB9PlDjGtr0xLx/HND ZUMq3x+3cc5vKMGx9q8ivn5rqUhP4DZs2EGiFHmc7MR0klgVpG7m3uIjEaq/2fYnHN6y cUpzwdq/PwUGhix4bg5NAm5xvk1vrIBXDjDsksv09z4OM78YC1b+htudlMDviUOIr0oa fT/DO+8ko902ThPy1z8qnMtKLhom+8p3gXkfrC4CRMS2UJIgYxFO7mWvCOezWgMG2FL2 dp6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Nqr657ab6YGnzcNDcepnYfih00CIIwsdajE9lS0pVpxqUTKAh X8ScrDMmu9SKKKxJ6P3jvZwNHfLQMEf8ruzTk1o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwI6ck42RrgwuIna5Pj5Ld0ZHBDf/JlYx35Dmvv9eJ0MDngcA5gw6OgvHc9+rMv/X/FtaEQQgX9bZ7M1oLjywE=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:de91:: with SMTP id j17mr4560426edv.85.1599664016695; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 08:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Vijay Gurbani <>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:06:37 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000079a5d205aee2cd50"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Edm] Some thoughts on Sep 1 meeting, Issue 1
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability \(Proposed\) Program" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:07:01 -0000

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 7:44 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> wrote:

> Hi, Vijay,
> [...]
> ISTM that it's worth considering what's possible without revising RFC
> 7942.
> Everyone may already know this, but the RFC Editor now has a way of
> inlining errata - for example, check
> *
> If we can figure out how to track "what's worth pointing to", perhaps the
> RFC editor could also inline pointers, rather than dorking with the RFC
> text itself.

Dear Spencer: Nice to hear from you, and thank you for your comment.

I am all for considering what's possible without revising RFC 7942, no
problem, as long as we can redirect the interested parties to the
appropriate code archives.

The work you cited that Adam has done on RFC 3261 for errata looks very
neat.  This could be a potential way to proceed if IAB/IETF decided not to
go the route of updating RFC 7942 or inserting some other text in the
RFC-to-be.  Some issues to consider if we go the inlining route would be
(a) how to aesthetically present the information on the RFC masthead, (b)
what is the expectation when someone prints the RFC with such inling?  Will
the inline text show up?  (In the case of RFC 3261 with inlined errata, I
note that all expanded errata are printed, non expanded errata appear as
green text in the generated PDF.  By "expanded" I mean that if I click on
one of the errata, it expands into a rectangle at the appropriate place in
the RFC, and that entire rectangle is then printed in the generated PDF.)


- vijay