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
- [manet] [Errata Rejected] RFC8175 (6730) RFC Errata System
- Re: [manet] [EXT] [Errata Rejected] RFC8175 (6730) Sipos, Brian J.
- Re: [manet] [EXT] [Errata Rejected] RFC8175 (6730) Alvaro Retana
- Re: [manet] [EXT] [Errata Rejected] RFC8175 (6730) Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [manet] [EXT] [Errata Rejected] RFC8175 (6730) Alvaro Retana