IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by (was: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6275 (5083) (fwd))

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 10 August 2017 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 9FD611323A5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:22 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 eTEkOhz8AR-y for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF4121323B7 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BB02009E; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:09:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062BE806BA; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:07:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
cc: 6man@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by (was: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6275 (5083) (fwd))
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708100947130.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708100947130.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:07:19 -0400
Message-ID: <8447.1502388439@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/FxS-KUr2MNX23pdPOrBNazhyNLs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:07:22 -0000

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
    > FYI. I decided to raise an errata against RFC6275 that seems to update
    > RFC4861 without this being noted anywhere in either document.

Are we able to update the metadata on RFC4861 in response to this errata?
I realize we can't re-issue 6275.

Since the Updates is to make sure that readers of 4861 know about new things,
the metadata 4861->6275 (which shows up in the tools page and datatracker for
the old documents) is really the important direction.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email