IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 29 February 2020 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4556B3A110E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:50:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 uXunzoJYpHjs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6DB53A110D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1j87Bo-00071F-GL; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 13:50:16 -0500
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 13:50:10 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)
Message-ID: <1B51654B7BFB8F24D2E8CBCC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20200229052740.0bf7fc08@elandnews.com>
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5518_1582908787_5E594573_5518_436_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346 208A48DD1BCA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <C8417F71-D61E-42AC-831E-B85269D5D4A5@steffann.nl> <9b677b7c-fe52-dbae-7f83-2b5be5194325@gont.com.ar> <6.2.5.6.2.20200228132634.1060a610@elandnews.com> <CAOj+MMHYXydkzOc5WrkoGdfUmFq+zuNsxGy+qqkAHYNUFK0KuA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200229052740.0bf7fc08@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/r1WnAemu12WcdT7VoFpPUI3j6pk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:50:27 -0000


--On Saturday, February 29, 2020 05:48 -0800 S Moonesamy
<sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Dear Mr Raszuk,
> At 02:36 PM 28-02-2020, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>> His information about 6man AD not accepting the Errata: 5933
>> is  correct. Errata must be first accepted by an AD then
>> processed  further. Since it was posted on 11th Dec 2019 it
>> was still not  accepted at first stage. You are mixing AD
>> acceptance / validation  with IESG decision. Those are
>> completely different errata processing phases.
> 
> Once an erratum is reported [1], a report is automatically
> sent to the Working Group Chair(s), the author(s) and the Area
> Directors.  The relevant Area Director ensures that there is
> adequate review and the erratum is classified.  There isn't
> any IESG decision for the errata processing phases.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5646 

More important, even having the erratum marked "verified" does
not change the substantive content of the a standard.  That
would require a new document, IETF Last Call, and IESG review
and signoff, presumably followed by RFC publication.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email