Re: [mile] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6545 (3302)

[<[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Sean.  I agree, the findings are editorial and should be noted in case there is a future update to the document.

Terry - thank you for finding the nits!

Best regards,
Kathleen
________________________________________
From: Sean Turner [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:44 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6545 (3302)

The question here is whether implementers will do something wrong based
on the incorrect address.  The right address is in the example so I
think not.  I'm going to change this to editorial and mark it hold for
document update.

spt

On 7/31/12 8:14 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6545,
> "Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6545&eid=3302
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: S Terry Brugger <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 7.2.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>     SP-1 is represented by CERT-FOR-OUR-DOMAIN and 192.0.2.67.  SP-2 is
>
>     identified by 192, 0.2.98.  In this example, SP-2 is the service
>
>     provider for systems on the 192.0.2.32/27 subnet.  The contact for
>
>     the host 192.0.2.35 is known at the start of the request as
>
>     'Constituency-contact@10.1.1.2'.
>
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>     SP-1 is represented by CERT-FOR-OUR-DOMAIN and 192.0.2.67.  SP-2 is
>
>     identified by 192.0.2.98.  In this example, SP-2 is the service
>
>     provider for systems on the 192.0.2.32/27 subnet.  The contact for
>
>     the host 192.0.2.35 is known at the start of the request as
>
>     'Constituency-contact@10.1.1.2'.
>
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> This could also be considered an Editorial erratum; however, since it is a technically invalid address, I selected Technical.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6545 (draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
> Publication Date    : April 2012
> Author(s)           : K. Moriarty
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>