Re: [manet] [EXT] [Errata Rejected] RFC8175 (6730)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 19 November 2021 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802893A040E; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:37:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 9ctMfmM--di0; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 7BBFB3A040A; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 1AJ2bX8U011356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Nov 2021 21:37:37 -0500
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:37:32 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "sratliff@idirect.net" <sratliff@idirect.net>, "sjury@cisco.com" <sjury@cisco.com>, "dsatterw@broadcom.com" <dsatterw@broadcom.com>, "rick.taylor@airbus.com" <rick.taylor@airbus.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "Sipos, Brian J." <Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu>
Message-ID: <20211119023732.GN93060@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20211105212513.7995820EA07@rfc-editor.org> <1b58d4d4f9014a8398ffd5a93459cdd8@jhuapl.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1b58d4d4f9014a8398ffd5a93459cdd8@jhuapl.edu>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/5Gfl6S9XIhsolLKz3dITTg936pM>
Subject: Re: [manet] [EXT] [Errata Rejected] RFC8175 (6730)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 02:37:56 -0000

An AD can ask the RFC Editor to set the status back to "reported", but I
would defer to Alvaro on whether to actually do so.

-Ben

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 07:57:54PM +0000, Sipos, Brian J. wrote:
> All,
> This last errata was about UDP fields, not IP fields that the earlier errata
> was correcting. They both just happen to apply to the same signal so they edit
> the same paragraph. Can this item be resurrected?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 5:25 PM
> To: Sipos, Brian J. <Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu>; sratliff@idirect.net;
> sjury@cisco.com; dsatterw@broadcom.com; rick.taylor@airbus.com
> Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com; iesg@ietf.org; manet@ietf.org;
> rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [EXT] [Errata Rejected] RFC8175 (6730)
> 
> APL external email warning: Verify sender wwwrun@rfc-editor.org before
> clicking links or attachments
> 
> The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8175, "Dynamic Link
> Exchange Protocol (DLEP)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6730
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Rejected
> Type: Technical
> 
> Reported by: Brian Sipos <brian.sipos@jhuapl.edu> Date Reported: 2021-11-03
> Rejected by: Alvaro Retana (IESG)
> 
> Section: 12.4
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> The Peer Offer Signal completes the discovery process; see Section 7.1.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The UDP source port and destination port MUST be set to the UDP destination
> port and source port, respectively, of the UDP packet containing the
> associated Peer Discovery Signal. The Peer Offer Signal completes the
> discovery process; see Section 7.1.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The original text did not specify any requirement about the source or
> destination UDP port number of the Peer Offer signal.
>  --VERIFIER NOTES--
> While this is a valid report, it is a duplicate of Errata ID: 6472.  I am then
> marking this one as Rejected.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8175 (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-29)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
> Publication Date    : June 2017
> Author(s)           : S. Ratliff, S. Jury, D. Satterwhite, R. Taylor, B. Berry
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG