Re: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4360 (4944)

Apparently, I didn't read Acee's email well enough:

I’m certainly not recommending that the ruler alignment justifies an
errata

Thanks,
Jakob.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:48 PM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>; John G. Scudder
> <jgs@juniper.net>; RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>; yang@nohdmi.com; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4360 (4944)
> 
> That's fine before an RFC is published, but please don't
> submit an errata on RFC 4271 or any other RFC that does it the other way.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:19 PM
> > To: Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>; John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>; RFC Errata System <rfc-
> > editor@rfc-editor.org>
> > Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>; yang@nohdmi.com; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4360 (4944)
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On 2/23/17, 5:11 PM, "Idr on behalf of Alvaro Retana (aretana)"
> > <idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I Rejected it already. ☺
> > >
> > >Thanks!
> > >
> > >Alvaro.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On 2/23/17, 4:50 PM, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >    The erratum either is for a typographical error, in which case it
> > >should be Hold for Document Update, or it's in error, in which case it
> > >should
> > >be Rejected. The guidelines don't offer a "this is a matter of taste"
> > >option, which I think is what applies here, unless someone can cite an
> > >RFC Editor style guideline specifying that the rulers are supposed to
> > >have the numbers above the pluses?
> > >
> > >    Right now my inclination would be go with Reject, but if someone can
> > >cite evidence that the proposed fix is objectively more correct than the
> > >current text (or if the mood of the WG supports that option, for that
> > >matter) we could do Hold for Document Update instead.
> >
> > I’m certainly not recommending that the ruler alignment justifies an
> > errata but, for future reference, the preferred ruler style is consistency
> > with RFC 791 with the numbers over the middle of the bit positions.
> >
> > Refer to section 3.4 or
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/old/instructions2authors.txt
> >
> > This is something I typically will correct when I review a draft.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Idr mailing list
> > >Idr@ietf.org
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr