[ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8972 (8592)

[RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>]

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/eid8592

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: William Hawkins <[e-mail]>

Section: 4.7

Original Text
-------------
A Session-Reflector might be able to put only an "SW Local" (see
Table 9) timestamp in the Follow-Up Timestamp field.

Corrected Text
--------------
A Session-Reflector might be able to put only an "SW Local" (see
Table 9) timestamp in the Timestamp field of the reflected STAMP
packet (Figure 2).

Notes
-----
Sorry for the back-to-back submissions -- I had these queued up and had delayed submission.

In an earlier version of the RFC, the sentence quoted in the Original Text read

"A Session-Reflector might be able to put in the Timestamp field only a "SW Local" (see Table 6) timestamp." 

(see, inter alia, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-02#section-4.7)

I have confirmed with one of the draft's original authors that a simple copy editing error was the cause of this tiny mistake. The sentence at the beginning of section 4.7 is meant to refer to the Timestamp field in the STAMP packet transmitted by the Session Reflector.

The earlier draft of this RFC specified that what is currently named the Follow-Up Timestamp field should be named the Timestamp field. The name collision resulted in an overzealous search/replace hiccup. I hope that having the record reflect the correct field name will save future developers from having to scratch their head like I did.

As usual, I sincerely appreciate the technical accuracy of the authors of the STAMP-related RFCs. As an implementer, the writing and specificity make it easy to build compliant software. I hope that this errata report is helpful for future implementers.

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