IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net> Sat, 29 February 2020 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 99B1D3A10CC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:36:58 -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 fmMyAo-aIqNV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5063D3A10CB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4CEA1C8521; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:36:52 -0600 (CST)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yYd86UL4SvTc; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:36:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [172.16.1.18] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFD67A1C8518; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:36:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:36:50 -0600
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <A9DD45D4-3972-4587-B1D6-427037B75D08@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGaHnVV9iVEsmatQyOeP_61qXw4yGYN+NdeK5C570V29g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5518_1582908787_5E594573_5518_436_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD1BCA@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> <CAOj+MMGaHnVV9iVEsmatQyOeP_61qXw4yGYN+NdeK5C570V29g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wC_SeSXM9KjcUeFCB--InzjOCns>
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 18:36:59 -0000

On 29 Feb 2020, at 9:17, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> Maybe just errata containing spelling errors could be approved by an 
> AD alone, but to fundamentally change the meaning of the 
> specification IMHO it would be pretty bad for IETF process to allow 
> such shortcut. 

You might want to have a peek at 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/

Errors that the AD determines "could cause implementation or deployment 
problems or significant confusion" are marked as Verified, but "changes 
that modify the working of a protocol to something that might be 
different from the intended consensus when the document was approved 
should be either Hold for Document Update or Rejected." It is up to the 
AD to determine whether the text aligns with the intention of the WG 
that produced the document. There is no further processing of errata 
beyond this.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email