[ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9197 (6992)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 15 June 2022 07:11 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 D3267C14F72A for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 lFskB7KKj6a5 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [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 187F2C14F736 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id AC77BC88CC; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: nmalykh@ieee.org, fbrockne@cisco.com, shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com, ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220615071127.AC77BC88CC@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:11:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/NEb6nRyo1phBKZN7f9AZ2fxYC74>
Subject: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9197 (6992)
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 07:11:31 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9197, "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6992 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@ieee.org> Section: 7.3 Original Text ------------- Bit: desired bit to be allocated in the 8-bit flags field of the Pre-allocated Trace Option-Type and Incremental Trace Option-Type Corrected Text -------------- Bit: desired bit to be allocated in the 4-bit flags field of the Pre-allocated Trace Option-Type and Incremental Trace Option-Type Notes ----- The size of the Flags field is 4 bits, not 8. Instructions: ------------- This erratum 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 can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC9197 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-17) -------------------------------------- Title : Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Publication Date : May 2022 Author(s) : F. Brockners, Ed., S. Bhandari, Ed., T. Mizrahi, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Measurement Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9197 (6992) RFC Errata System