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

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A761293F5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:04:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 9lWyZ_poEWGh for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:03:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F4351293F3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:03:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4402; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487898238; x=1489107838; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=EDg32aGuUu6IarTsWfvK2cRUJbp1kYXh0twgbDQJsGs=; b=P3+P93FeWfi4HiNdraRfyJ3nVFlRUM1Z33eL5DUuAzYZ2Y0XhT18+/2b U71lmBqoT0Po5cZfiWc1X5u/dTTNiMYwqhDiUnpWGRDNcfw2HLe1lCPhQ TckGhCk+Jjpl4Yah2dz+qMg1hUZkDWAg+LdTk1AaraW7EQaVeySBelxCJ k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ANAgCqha9Y/4wNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1BhgQkHg1SKCJFelTSCDR8LhXgCGoMLPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIR?= =?us-ascii?q?wAQEBBAEBIRE6CwwEAgEIEQQBAQECAiMDAgICJQsUAQgIAgQBDQUIiW0OrVOCJ?= =?us-ascii?q?otCAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBC4VBhG+BPIJqEQGDIoJfBYkjh3S?= =?us-ascii?q?KfQGSGoIEhRyDUYYpiDeKcAEfOHgIVBU+hkl1AYkXgSGBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,199,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="212388371"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Feb 2017 01:03:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1O13vCC029750 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:03:57 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:03:56 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:03:56 -0600
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
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>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4360 (4944)
Thread-Index: AQHSjiLgTeLAqNZF1UC3g33mEKQhqaF3Uo9wgAAD3XA=
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:03:56 +0000
Message-ID: <5398e61e8a0545b4b1a73f3d1b8669ad@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <D4D4C920.9E6A0%acee@cisco.com> <336d69bd7e72405daaf4a79cdf863e9e@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <336d69bd7e72405daaf4a79cdf863e9e@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.178.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kwbzTAEgZrNFDpojbe8dxK9_XwU>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, "yang@nohdmi.com" <yang@nohdmi.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4360 (4944)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:04:00 -0000

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>om>; Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>om>; John G. Scudder
> <jgs@juniper.net>et>; RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>rg>; 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>om>; John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>et>; RFC Errata System <rfc-
> > editor@rfc-editor.org>
> > Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>rg>; 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