Re: [manet] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7466 (7477)

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

Great... now we have spam in IETF Erratas???

By the way, I think I identified a 'problem' with how the combination
of NHDP and OLSRv2 reacts to a suddenly breaking link... A coworker of
mine identified during a test that the metric algorithm can NOT change
the quality of a link when it suddenly breaks, which is quite annoying
if you have a long Hello Validity time. Anyone interested in details?

Henning Rogge

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 9:44 PM Don Fedyk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Several chairs are reporting spam Erratta in their working groups.  If you see more of these that don’t make any sense no need to address them.
>
> Thanks
>
> Don
>
>
>
> From: manet <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Justin Dean
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 10:39 AM
> To: Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
> Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] IETF <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [manet] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7466 (7477)
>
>
>
> Ah you are correct as nearly always, I just saw the MANET and NHDP and thought NHDP.  The RFC number didn't seem right but it's been too long.
>
> Justin (not a co-author of 7466)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 10:17 AM Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I feel that as a mere author, I can only make suggestions to the RFC editor. But, yes, as suggestions go, it’s quite a strong one.
>
>
>
> (Incidentally Justin, I think you’ve got this one confused with another one - this one just has Thomas and I as authors.)
>
>
>
> On 28 Apr 2023, at 15:10, Justin Dean <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Suggest" rejecting seems a little too permissive.  Unless there was some issue with the reporting and there is more that just didn't get included it should be rejected.
>
> Justin Dean (also Co-author of this RFC.)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 9:04 AM Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> There appears to be a problem here. First, there is no Section 7466. Second, the original and corrected texts are the same.
>
> (Also, were this to be an erratum, the notes would be entirely inadequate.)
>
> I suggest rejecting this erratum.
>
> Christopher Dearlove
> (Co-author of this RFC.)
>
> > On 28 Apr 2023, at 13:02, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7466,
> > "An Optimization for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7477
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Rajeev Kumar Surroach <[e-mail]>
> >
> > Section: 7466
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > 7466
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > 7466
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > Solve the issue
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC7466 (draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization-04)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : An Optimization for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
> > Publication Date    : March 2015
> > Author(s)           : C. Dearlove, T. Clausen
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
> > Area                : Routing
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet