Re: [netconf] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8650 (6368)

Let it be noted that this Errata (6368) is rejected.

Muly, please submit another Errata with the solution forwarded by Eric.

Kent // as co-Chair

> On Dec 24, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> +1. 
> 
> On 2020-12-24, 1:27 PM, "netconf on behalf of Eric Voit (evoit)" <netconf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>    Yes, that is what I suggest: that we change '22' to '39' in the URI.
> 
>    Eric
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 11:23 AM
>> To: Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com>
>> Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
>> <rrahman@cisco.com>; Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) <einarnn@cisco.com>;
>> ludwig@clemm.org; andy@yumaworks.com; warren@kumari.net; Rob Wilton
>> (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; Mahesh Jethanandani
>> <mjethanandani@gmail.com>; muly_i@rad.com; netconf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8650 (6368)
>> 
>> Hi Eric,
>> 
>> Thank you for you comment.  But note that the errata system is binary,
>    either an
>> errata is accepted or rejected.  To do what you say entails rejecting this
>    errata
>> and submitting a different one to say it,  Is this what you advocate?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kent
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 24, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Rather than changing the subscription from 22 to 39, the URI should be
>    made:
>>> https://example.com/restconf/subscriptions/39
>>> 
>>> Reasons:
>>> (1) There is no assumption that the subscription is the same one as
>>> for the previous example.
>>> (2) We want to keep the examples in lock-step with RFC8640.
>>> 
>>> Eric
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    netconf mailing list
>    netconf@ietf.org
>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> 