IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation Call on Resolution of Errata 5170, 5171, 5172, 5173 on RFC8200

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 05 December 2019 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 331EA120103 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 02:05:32 -0800 (PST)
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 xlFRAiDA0S1a for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 02:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 140DF1200A4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 02:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E9404E11AC6; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:05:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5AC24A5D1E; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:05:27 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: Confirmation Call on Resolution of Errata 5170, 5171, 5172, 5173 on RFC8200
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <30fc9d2f-02e2-8932-68e3-9d2886f4881e@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:05:26 +0100
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F61412FF-F49A-4288-AA22-83F01FBF3A7E@employees.org>
References: <C079EDCA-C69B-4D01-A96A-4741B6D96369@gmail.com> <4356A839-FE3F-481E-8A02-3059C97FBD8D@gmail.com> <30fc9d2f-02e2-8932-68e3-9d2886f4881e@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zTYDwzDzVRvnMml0a0PSHCQ1NIA>
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 10:05:32 -0000

Fernando,

> My question is: what's the rationale for rejecting the errata?

I believe that has been answered.
There are not 4 separate solutions that map directly to each individual errata 5170, 5171, 5172 and 5173.
One errata with one solutions makes the fix consistent and consumable.

There might be an underlaying problem with the errata system. It conflates the bug reporting part with the document ammending part.
My preference would have been two separate tools. Barring that I would have preferred us to just have the above errata deleted.
Given the current state of process "reject" is the only choice.
I understand that you disagree with this position, although I cannot quite say I understand your rationale for why.

I was hoping that the focus on this discussion would be on getting the bug-fix right, rather than on process issues.
That is regardless Suresh' decision to make.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email