IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6434 (3091)

Sam Silvester <sam.silvester@gmail.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sam.silvester@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC8011E80BD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:36:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LNPAZFJVSFHU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B17B11E80B2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wgbdq11 with SMTP id dq11so1779966wgb.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:36:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BGiRwFQGGTxyu8wyRP7nxeouVM+j5ADznMRkXnF2mhA=; b=muPwzNqq+6hZTcUrLoBvjlA9hasvAa395j65ENi7FMuwyrJZkg5d8C4ODqlAyzBx3S tmhZ4WZqc3NxRFwM4J6NTe6AKF+7icSJD3Y/HLELpMDeryhEs3WbrXbr2kcHJ0G3rSkX HVvGKAb0GsZ/XbrO58HXuKeXrL/tgst0Zkwbg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.19.138 with SMTP id f10mr39195128wie.3.1326836167745; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:36:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.157.194 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:36:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F15BB0C.5040108@innovationslab.net>
References: <20120116232606.377C8B1E007@rfc-editor.org> <4F15BB0C.5040108@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:06:07 +1030
Message-ID: <CAAAhk68brTy-EZJqwbkysndZvMTSfpkHV5bVR57df6dPKkpb8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6434 (3091)
From: Sam Silvester <sam.silvester@gmail.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, narten@us.ibm.com, ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:36:10 -0000

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Brian Haberman
<brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
>
> I am not sure there is a benefit to adding a single adjective to the noted
> sentence.  The actual reference is correct, so the reader will be correctly
> directed to the Lightweight MLD specification.
>
> Regards,
> Brian

Fair enough.

My understanding was that "Lightweight MLDv2" is the name of the RFC
in the reference, as such shouldn't we be getting it right -
especially in the sense that the name is close enough to MLDv2 and
therefore avoiding confusion would be a good thing? i.e. it's less an
adjective - if we're referring to an RFC, we should do it properly -
especially when there is another, similar and related RFC that is also
being discussed in the same paragraph?

If only because it made me stop, get a little confused and have to go
back and re-read the section (hence the Errata!) to get it clear in my
mind what was going on.

Regards,

Sam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email