Re: [netmod] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8407 (6899)

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 11:22 AM John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

> > Hi John, all,
> >
> > If we want the fix to the appendix to be immediately visible to the
> readers (in the rendered version), wouldn’t be more appropriate to mark
> this erratum as “verified” rather than “held for doc update”?
>
> I suppose.  In 2018 when this RFC was published, the Trust still said
> "Simplified" so what's in the text matches what the author intended at the
> time.  Not a big deal either way for me, since as I noted, the actual
> license it points to has always been correct.  Only the name was wrong.
>
>
We intended to include the text provided.
If people follow the guidelines in Appendix A now,
and use the word "Simplified", it is going to need to be fixed later.
Better to avoid that if possible.


R's,
> John
>

Andy


>
> > De : Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
> > Envoyé : jeudi 31 mars 2022 19:11
> > À : John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
> > Cc : tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>;
> rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org; netmod@ietf.org
> > Objet : Re: [netmod] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8407 (6899)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:56 AM John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com<mailto:
> johnl@iecc.com>> wrote:
> >> There are not thousands of RFCs that include a "Module Review
> Checklist" :-), which is the purpose of this erratum. Thanks.
> >>
> >> <tp>
> >>
> >> I agree.  There may be lots of RFC in error because RFC8407 gets it
> wrong but if the update to the lots of RFC was wanted then it should have
> been investigated last Autumn when the announcement of the change to the
> TLP was made, an announcement that passed me by despite being on all the
> right mailing lists.
> >
> > The fix to the TLP was my idea in the first place and it's not that big
> of
> > a deal.  If you follow the link and read that part of the TLP, the actual
> > license has never changed.  We just give it the correct name now.
> >
> > I agree the checklist in Appendix A should be updated.
> >
> > The corrected RFC (any RFC where Errata Exists) should be available
> online.
> > Not erasing the published RFC, but with a link to rfcNNNN-current (where
> all accepted Errata is applied).
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com<mailto:johnl@taugh.com>, Primary
> Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> https://jl.ly
> >
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
> ou falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>