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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 12/10/13, 4:50 AM, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
>  
> 
> But, short of an RFC6241-bis (which I can't see occurring any time
> soon), how else can the clarification be made available to readers of
> the RFC? They might find the information if they search the Netconf
> Discussion Archive, but that isn't particularly easy nor guaranteed to
> provide the information needed (even assuming they realise there is a
> need for clarification). For people who have been involved in all the
> discussions on NETCONF since RFC 3535 much of this is presumably
> obvious, but for those of us seeking to understand NETCONF based
> primarily on a reading of the RFCs (in the absence of any book written
> on the subject), it would be really useful if any clarifications that
> arise through the Netconf Discussion Archive could be made more easily
> available, maybe as annotations rather than errata. 

Imho this is not an appropriate use of the errata system.

if there is something wrong (with 6241) e.g. the 3822 errata is
necessary for correct implementation that's one thing, if the are
clarifying we should not be handling them in this fashion.

> On 2013-12-10
> 12:28, Martin Bjorklund wrote: 
> 
>> "Bert Wijnen (IETF)"
> <[e-mail]> 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
> [1] 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
>  
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&amp;rec_status=15&amp;presentation=table
>