IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 10 August 2017 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 4E96213234E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 XiLdvUl2PLXt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EB14131D27 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6ED8DA2; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1502351386; bh=I5dj+6Hge5Y0JNDR1bN5mA4Uo3zdj5LLreoek6nZfhk=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=Uv7hAzxEl9PmK90KS7I9LVxa7Q3Me2Gi1FFAMYBl92UkMvZ0SUU+xZRJhpS2OV+sr xKa9Eg0RdDyVkb85bEhQrzcctbspmmc4m8oMBg3Bya2paisrIWUu0EqzGE5/l8/oPV eOZiWB27zmlq+NBgs4RFwqK81gQcaHShqVKdrGvc=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE46A1 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:49:46 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: 6man@ietf.org
Subject: RFC 4861 missing updated-by (was: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6275 (5083) (fwd))
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708100947130.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/J0UIWlx8Zdg8NvXqFT5Ok1J8fD4>
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 07:49:52 -0000

FYI. I decided to raise an errata against RFC6275 that seems to update 
RFC4861 without this being noted anywhere in either document.

I am still unsure if I also need to raise an errata against RFC4861, but I 
think this single errata would take care of both documents gaining 
updates/updated-by references?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
To: charliep@computer.org, dbj@cs.rice.edu, jari.arkko@ericsson.com,
     suresh.krishnan@gmail.com, terry.manderson@icann.org, julien.ietf@gmail.com,
     jouni.korhonen@nsn.com
Cc: swmike@swm.pp.se, dmm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6275 (5083)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6275,
"Mobility Support in IPv6".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5083

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text
-------------


Corrected Text
--------------


Notes
-----
Section 7.2 of RFC6275 introduces a new flag, called the R bit. This seems to update RFC 4861 section 4.6.2. However, there is no mention in RFC6275 or in RFC4861 that this happened.

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.

--------------------------------------
RFC6275 (draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Mobility Support in IPv6
Publication Date    : July 2011
Author(s)           : C. Perkins, Ed., D. Johnson, J. Arkko
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Mobility EXTensions for IPv6
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email