[ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9359 (7901)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 19 April 2024 11:45 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CF7C14F71A for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 04:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eMq6ujyekY1e for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 04:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 083B5C14F6B2 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 04:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id D718E18F7297; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 04:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: loa@pi.nu, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn, gregimirsky@gmail.com, leibo@chinatelecom.cn, ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240419114553.D718E18F7297@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 04:45:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Lsc_15SVHRv7NKGGhAZ8a6oWOKI>
Subject: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9359 (7901)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:45:58 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9359, "Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7901 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities Corrected Text -------------- Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Capabilities Notes ----- Neither OAM nor IOAM are well-known and need to be expanded at first use, this is the title so this is the first occurrence. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC9359 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities Publication Date : April 2023 Author(s) : X. Min, G. Mirsky, L. Bo Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Measurement Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9359 (7901) RFC Errata System