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

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Thu, 23 February 2017 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
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 E066D1299E3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:56:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Qqw4-wWf5sLa for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:3::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 685311298BF for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.88) (envelope-from <job@ntt.net>) id 1ch1Mm-0004fK-CC (job@us.ntt.net); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:56:11 +0000
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:55:25 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20170223215525.GA89584@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <20170221064307.662DDB818AE@rfc-editor.org> <176CF6D8-2000-434D-B594-67D97FAF6B66@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <176CF6D8-2000-434D-B594-67D97FAF6B66@juniper.net>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgOtdeW-nQZvMSGnagOaRCigCWU>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, yang@nohdmi.com, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:56:18 -0000

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:50:10PM -0500, John G. Scudder wrote:
> To save others the trouble of figuring out just exactly what this erratum even *is*: in the original text, the numbers in the diagram rulers align above the minus signs. In the "corrected" text they align above the plus signs. I would like to remind anyone who might submit an erratum in the future: please use the "notes" section to make it clear what your proposed change is, unless it's perfectly obvious.
> 
> Looking at https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html, we have 
> 
> > 	• Rejected - The erratum is in error, or proposes a change to
> > 	the RFC that should be done by publishing a new RFC that
> > 	replaces the current RFC. In the latter case, if the change is
> > 	to be considered for future updates of the document, it should
> > 	be proposed using channels other than the errata process, such
> > 	as a WG mailing list. 
> > 	• Hold for Document Update - The erratum is not a necessary
> > 	update to the RFC. However, any future update of the document
> > 	might consider this erratum, and determine whether it is correct
> > 	and merits including in the update. 
> > ...
> > Guidelines for review are: 
> > 
> > 	5. Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to
> > 	implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document
> > 	Update.
> 
> 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.

The example provided in RFC 2360 is aligned with the currently published
text:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2360#section-3.1

Kind regards,

Job