[mpls] Heads Up - Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6428 (3629) and RFC6428 (4415)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

I might have made a mistake that causes a mix up of two errata.

We have a new erratum RFC6428 (4415) sent by Greg. This errata is
active, and we need to respond to it.

We also have an old erratum RFC6428 (3629), this was verified back in
2013. If we want to reopen this we will need a new errata.

What happened was that when I got the new errata I did go back and check
the earlier.

When I intended to respond to the new errata (4415), I responded to the
mail reporting errata (3629). I think all mails have been on the working
group mailing list.

It seems to that some of the comments are on the verified (3629) and
some are on (4415).

Can those of you that participated in the discussion so far verify that
your comments are intended for errata (4415).

/Loa
with the fool's cap on

On 2015-07-16 15:52, David Allan I wrote:
> Point taken.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 3:52 AM
> To: David Allan I; Loa Andersson; RFC Errata System; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6428 (3629)
>
> ... but what have people implemented?
>
> - Stewart
>
>
> On 15/07/2015 16:52, David Allan I wrote:
>> The problem in the original text is the enumeration of fields and references in the TLV encompassed by the length is split over two sentences. So the proposed errata does make it clearer and would be better than simply munging the two sentences together....
>>
>> So I'm good with it
>>
>> Cheers
>> D
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:56 PM
>> To: RFC Errata System; David Allan I; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6428 (3629)
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> The errata seems correct, but I'd like the authors to nod also :), John, George and/or Dave.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>> On 2013-05-21 16:13, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6428,
>>> "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile".
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6428&eid=3629
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Technical
>>> Reported by: Alan Davey <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> Section: 3.5.3
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>> The length is the length of the following data: the Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9].
>>>
>>>
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>> The length is the length of the data following the length field.  The Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9].
>>>
>>>
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC6428 (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-06)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title               : Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile
>>> Publication Date    : November 2011
>>> Author(s)           : D. Allan, Ed., G. Swallow Ed., J. Drake Ed.
>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
>>> Area                : Routing
>>> Stream              : IETF
>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
> For corporate legal information go to:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>