Re: [ipcdn] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3083 (4048)

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Sat, 12 July 2014 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ipcdn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipcdn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0311B2880 for <ipcdn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 06:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 XESp-4Ncxzaq for <ipcdn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 06:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA2B1B2876 for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 06:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.60]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id RRNL1o0011HzFnQ54RVNxv; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 13:29:22 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.105] ([68.34.113.195]) by omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id RRVK1o00m4D0RQL3aRVLYR; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 13:29:22 +0000
References: <20140711150259.3A1F7180201@rfc-editor.org> <53c07499.e149320a.1e0e.2b68SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CABfCB8qoiuAY144E_Vb91y=izfOdifP_9JcRrtQ=ovqw3w3B3g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CABfCB8qoiuAY144E_Vb91y=izfOdifP_9JcRrtQ=ovqw3w3B3g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8D77D726-CA02-4E97-9127-E058BCFB799E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <8721294E-3582-48B7-B725-C411BB2D321A@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11D257)
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:29:19 -0400
To: Mark Ellison <ellison@ieee.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1405171762; bh=9iVwZ1cFv0HlzM4E1FkxnJzbNHUUzxtlfBOSC+1QGDo=; h=Received:Received:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:From: Subject:Date:To; b=dGnZVpjOGVWVzDZGQjHYSCZKxUM5Ipra3beD29YB0LRYRnB7EPVopZJRmpop4hnqv YV8himbiOC0jvyPTXM4B67LauhBPLVeDtCmx9z5sZensfTI3006tsvUofcIaF2gC4Z StU6oVQKKOwvY0eAGbWfl6TUHoeKiU28Np9vuKP2Sby8gBhaOLPOSovw0lhVrvdjGh BImhNM4YlpGsxkEfIU7PbhHSxav2SnbPTHN3NswZ3cPqzL7NoHPdZw+wwlGqCsHMHM C1gdA2YWGe1D9f0WWZzUbPQtPkOH65wQTDHOOa2mmMTNzgTzZWVaC1bP0OgZ0OsZ9N 807yIWKQ938FA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipcdn/Uxgbq01OmMFxlOkm7J5kcIOI1Hk
Cc: "ipcdn@ietf.org" <ipcdn@ietf.org>, "joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com>, "jf.mule@cablelabs.com" <jf.mule@cablelabs.com>, "rwoundy@cisco.com" <rwoundy@cisco.com>, "bclaise@cisco.com" <bclaise@cisco.com>, "Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [ipcdn] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3083 (4048)
X-BeenThere: ipcdn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP over Cable Data Network <ipcdn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipcdn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 13:29:25 -0000

Ok.  That makes sense.  I didn't realize Rich had posted an errata.  The "start" is extraneous but harmless, but does need the comma if present.  Mike

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 12, 2014, at 7:55, Mark Ellison <ellison@ieee.org>; wrote:
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> My submission is in regard to the docsBpiCmAuthState object.  If you look at the technical errata submitted here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3083  then you will see the comma is clearly omitted from the 'fixed' text:
> 
>> It should say:
>> 
>>    docsBpiCmAuthState      OBJECT-TYPE
>>    SYNTAX                  INTEGER {
>> 
>>                                    start(1)
>>                                    authWait(2),
>>                                    authorized(3),
>>                                    reauthWait(4),
>>                                    authRejectWait(5)
> 
> 
> Maybe what you are saying is that the above fix is not required?  If so, it is misleading...and either way, syntactically incorrect!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>; wrote:
>> What a blast from the past.
>> 
>> This is "not an error" , at least as reported.  Three are two places this error might have been reported from - the definition of  docsBpiCmAuthState and  the definition o fdocsBpiCmTEKState.  The former -  I believe correctly -does not include "start (1)" as one of its states.  The latter has "start (1),"  - e.g. including the comma.  So I'm not sure where he's actually seeing the error.
>> 
>> The  MIB  was verified at submission.  I would be surprised if there are any obvious syntactic errors like this in the body of the MIB.
>> 
>> If I remember correctly, the reason the "start" state was excluded from the docsBpiCmAuthState enums is that its never a visible state - the state machine doesn't actually exist until docsIfCmStatusValue is at least todEstablished - (RFC4546) and the state would always be later than "start" so any query about baseline privacy will not necessarily give you valid information prior to todEstablished.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 11:02 AM 7/11/2014, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> >The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3083,
>> >"Baseline Privacy Interface Management Information Base for DOCSIS Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems".
>> >
>> >--------------------------------------
>> >You may review the report below and at:
>> >http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3083&eid=4048
>> >
>> >--------------------------------------
>> >Type: Technical
>> >Reported by: Mark Ellison <ellison@ieee.org>;
>> >
>> >Section: 4
>> >
>> >Original Text
>> >-------------
>> >start(1)
>> >
>> >Corrected Text
>> >--------------
>> >start(1),
>> >
>> >Notes
>> >-----
>> >errata # 334 for RFC3083 omits the necessary comma at the end of the inserted line 'start(1)'
>> >
>> >Instructions:
>> >-------------
>> >This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> >use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> >rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>> >can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>> >
>> >--------------------------------------
>> >RFC3083 (draft-ietf-ipcdn-mcns-bpi-mib-02)
>> >--------------------------------------
>> >Title               : Baseline Privacy Interface Management Information Base for DOCSIS Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems
>> >Publication Date    : March 2001
>> >Author(s)           : R. Woundy
>> >Category            : INFORMATIONAL
>> >Source              : IP over Cable Data Network
>> >Area                : Operations and Management
>> >Stream              : IETF
>> >Verifying Party     : IESG
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >IPCDN mailing list
>> >IPCDN@ietf.org
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
> 
> 
>