[ippm] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8972 (8339)

[Will Hawkins <[e-mail]>]

Hello!

I am terribly sorry for selecting the wrong type. I was attempting to
follow best practices and must have completely misinterpreted guidance
on how to proceed. Again, I am very sorry for causing you all extra
work and hope that the errata submission is helpful!
Will

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 4:46 PM Madison Church
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mohamed,
>
> We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/)
>
> You may review the report at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8339
>
> Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/
>
> Further information on errata can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/mc
>
> > On Mar 18, 2025, at 7:00 PM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8972,
> > "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8339
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Editorial
> > Reported by: William Hawkins <[e-mail]>
> >
> > Section: 4.7
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > The Session-Reflector MUST validate the Length value of the STAMP test
> > packet.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > The Session-Reflector MUST validate the Length value of the Followup
> > TLV.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The STAMP protocol (and the introduction of TLV extensions) make for a great tool for active network measurement. I hope that this simple change helps improve the technical accuracy of the coordinated set of RFCs. Thank you, authors and editors, for the great work you have done!
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
> > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC8972 (draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-10)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions
> > Publication Date    : January 2021
> > Author(s)           : G. Mirsky, X. Min, H. Nydell, R. Foote, A. Masputra, E. Ruffini
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : IP Performance Measurement
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
>