Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (3821)

"Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Tue, 10 December 2013 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8624A1ADF82 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:25:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.955
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=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 oL6wupoDWnBy for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:25:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3BD1ADFA2 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:25:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bertietf@bwijnen.net>) id 1VqOFO-0008Kr-UQ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:25:16 +0100
Received: from kitten.ipv6.ripe.net ([2001:67c:2e8:1::c100:1f0] helo=guest180.guestnet.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bertietf@bwijnen.net>) id 1VqOFO-0002dA-Q7; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:25:14 +0100
Message-ID: <52A7244A.4090006@bwijnen.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:25:14 +0100
From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <20131206100737.B33EB7FC383@rfc-editor.org> <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <20131210.132819.2303764306420511964.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131210.132819.2303764306420511964.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd45767ab938779446f16612760250c7d3f
Cc: rob.enns@gmail.com, joelja@bogus.com, netconf@ietf.org, andy.bierman@brocade.com
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (3821)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:25:24 -0000

Martin, did you mean to make this statement for all 3 reported errata,
or just for 3821?

If anyone disagrees with Martin's assessment, pls speak up NOW.

Thanks,
Bert

On 12/10/13 1:28 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>; wrote:
>> We have a set of 3 new errata reported to RFC6241.
>> See:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&rec_status=15&presentation=table
>>
>> We would like to hear from the authors/editors what their
>> opinion is on the reported errata.
>
> I think the proposed text is fine, however I do not know if it
> qualifies as an errata.  IMO it clarifies the description of
> confirmed-commit, but the current text is not wrong.
>
>
> /martin
>
>