IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5952 (4483)

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sun, 27 September 2015 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6471A87E2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 00EFnDT1DMcB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3231A87E1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vkhf67 with SMTP id f67so74916700vkh.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Bjv4/8dd3phRd97I6T3CH2y1EcZPyThfdo4zMPIvaGk=; b=AFTEKvdz0NDATFUFZnkgjoC7H4X8nwiWg/c3r4j51tOzlrJzntOkyCSZsFsjtowxBa olahrHV0xwClJkT65ekuG6IDJR0m/sM6rqLH3DsvSqbC8Q6HlliQlxoVMwFhxBkaHvKH yhIM7oPRkXVdf5WyKqC48BLhyGxQrvSzT3ZSjq5DlQSembpfgZFSNdKFpVd61pn2RzZX LKD1xDLAZSwMtiJW/jnJr02Lu9pcXu5jnCvqGDZt66f0HaHc0s4ShVdiKw5VM8rS+aGV 6rMnYP7wgqcR+2/JcWHvXxTuwuAc5u46aXoWb8jFvH4dNPotnsbOKIC90OYYcA4sOzKC bn/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.9.81 with SMTP id 78mr7230655vkj.10.1443321181423; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.77.16 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.77.16 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150927004358.ACD1B180207@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20150927004358.ACD1B180207@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:33:01 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xLWtB27qP4nC1xxPPo-y+Nf6Q=zzbWOpF8XF1adVFcdw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5952 (4483)
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143c0f650cd2f0520b16684"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tgHPA8s5emqhhMgmtkBg4M-0q1w>
Cc: brian@innovationslab.net, ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, Andy@andy.com.pt, terry.manderson@icann.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 02:33:04 -0000

On 27 Sep 2015 10:44, "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5952,
> "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5952&eid=4483
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: André Melancia <Andy@Andy.COM.PT>
>
> Section: 4.3
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> —
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> —
>
> Notes
> -----
> Errata ID 2656, reported by D. Stussy in 2010-12-02 is CORRECT and
perfectly justified.
> This was however rejected on 2012-05-30. Justification on "verified
notes" states "This errata is attempting to overturn the clear consensus of
the WG.", which is WRONG, since WG consensus applies to the whole document,
not specifically to section 4.3 or its unjustified and arbitrary lowercase
conventioning.

My 2 bits.

This should be rejected, as consensus on the whole of a document inherently
implies consensus on specific parts of it.

> There is no technical reason why lowercase "must" or "should" be used,
instead, HISTORICALLY (which for any IETF work has been the "de facto"
rule) uppercase has been used (see full justification in Errata ID 2656
mentioned above).
> Additionally, and considering that modern devices are able to properly
handle case changes without performance losses, the WG should discuss
removing this rule altogether.
>
> 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 (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5952 (draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
Representation
> Publication Date    : August 2010
> Author(s)           : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : IPv6 Maintenance
> Area                : Internet
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email