IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Errata on RFC8200

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 17 June 2019 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 DE23B1203BC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jlZyw3yT5Dwk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33D661203C4 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [75.98.19.133]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9304A1F450; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:35:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id CC9F33810; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Errata on RFC8200
In-reply-to: <eca72921-6bf7-94cb-f503-b13af353b4ee@si6networks.com>
References: <0ce4e502-6b2b-af5c-101b-29376eb226b3@si6networks.com> <67b05a9e-ef4c-127b-f4a3-fd90d2a1aea4@si6networks.com> <eca72921-6bf7-94cb-f503-b13af353b4ee@si6networks.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> message dated "Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:07:54 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:35:27 -0400
Message-ID: <10679.1560789327@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Cd2J3yEBJ3OAikiG9Gx2X_uDTNs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:35:29 -0000

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
    > Given this is the core IPv6 spec, it is certainly the most (or one of
    > the most) important documents this wg maintains.

I think that for editorial stuff, the WG should have a Consensus Call, and
mark it as accepted.

For the Fragment-related stuff, a document that Updates: 8200 is the right
process.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email