Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns

Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@talpey.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFABE3A07EC for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 KdUfd-7ob_w3 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa12-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa12-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B0B3A0A43 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.79] ([24.218.182.144]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id 1AEhk7938XkZh1AEikw8nL; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:12:48 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=MqEsFFSe c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=ugQcCzLIhEHbLaAUV45L0A==:117 a=ugQcCzLIhEHbLaAUV45L0A==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=yPCof4ZbAAAA:8 a=0FD05c-RAAAA:8 a=2JLUh5-gAAAA:8 a=lSiqd4n_AAAA:8 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8 a=uISSeKT6vVIbn4A3DpsA:9 a=Id-6-5RWSr6BPLSB:21 a=kohU5eV0j3arsY9m:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=l1rpMCqCXRGZwUSuRcM3:22 a=hnrGVjIjb-X0WoHtSFqa:22 a=qBMiMUYco1Hd1y0jbb8H:22 a=0mFWnFbQd5xWBqmg7tTt:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: tom@talpey.com
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
References: <HE1PR0702MB3772011E83C71FC05A28983F95700@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <65F221A3-3405-4F2C-99B6-278E8C2C0AD8@oracle.com> <HE1PR0702MB377297EAEE9040F8BDD7046D95710@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <8c6e035a-9b50-f485-794a-54f02619643c@talpey.com> <HE1PR0702MB3772EF82E09D8D37CD5FE22495710@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Message-ID: <df4e4dda-f019-d276-8fd4-7e4141f4c247@talpey.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:12:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0702MB3772EF82E09D8D37CD5FE22495710@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfHsc8dM2Eg2S6tIXwoWlFzlQrVIGsuaAphuuxBwEH9l4/A1OQq9jEt9UrJrYmn/eB5QgSymetQld/EerRZs8+tdSQlIuoIDnD3kZlQSkFtvQ1hdphVaa 9NUMX55EKIPDOezWuvC9F2eKMMruMDM/A86zotAxS+HQMWHAQNbsGUOR
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/1kc_qdJYaFKC8JFP7UFeiq8p6f4>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:13:09 -0000

Well, I thought all the errata were fine. But after Chuck's
reply, I agree that 2249 could use a slight additional tweak.

If it hasn't caused an issue in 10 years, perhaps we should
assume it won't cause one in future. Sleeping dogs, and all.

Tom.

On 7/30/2020 10:50 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Thanks for more input. What you write indicates that this errata should not be included as it requires additional editing.
> 
> I hope you have taken time to look at the other Errata to ensure that there are not more cases that are not pure straightforward and would be good to have more clarifications on.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfsv4 <nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tom Talpey
>> Sent: den 30 juli 2020 16:37
>> To: nfsv4@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns
>>
>> On 7/30/2020 10:25 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> Hi Chuck,
>>>
>>> If Errata 2249 despite its status as a verified editorial errata is
>>> not editorial then lets leave it out of these changes. I really only
>>> want to propose things that are truly editorial and have the potential
>>> for cause issues for an implementor using this specification.
>>
>> Totally agree with the goal, but this erratum is 10 years old (!) and was filed
>> by someone who well-understands the situation. At a minimum it seems
>> prudent to update the text to clarify this, perhaps while making a statement
>> of fact that implementations to an earlier version might have differing
>> behavior.
>>
>> JMHO.
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>> *From:*Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
>>> *Sent:* den 30 juli 2020 14:18
>>> *To:* Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
>>> *Cc:* nfsv4@ietf.org; draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns@ietf.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns
>>>
>>> Hi Magnus -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      On Jul 29, 2020, at 5:01 AM, Magnus Westerlund
>>>      <magnus.westerlund@ericsson..com
>>>      <mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hi Authors and WG
>>>
>>>      This relates to the ongoing AUTH48 for
>>>      draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msnsI
>>>
>>>      I got a question from the RFC-editor about some of the errata filed
>>>      on RFC 5561. These where two errata that are editorial and verified.
>>>      They are basically typos or other very basic issues but of potential
>>>      importance to understanding. And maybe we should include these
>>>      change into this document instead of continue to confuse the reader.
>>>      However looking in the Errata list there are more that of this basic
>>>      type but wasn’t obvious in the copy editing.
>>>
>>>      The Errata that I think falls into this category are:
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3d26058d-63969815-3d264516-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-e88b46058479f168&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid3558
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=2187309c-7f279e51-21877007-8607
>>> 3b36ea28-7eccff51ed56e2f2&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid3558>
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=2ce31625-72538bbd-2ce356be-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-4f76c1e5e3389d53&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2062
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=72c62308-2c668dc5-72c66393-8607
>>> 3b36ea28-54630add5fc8660d&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2062>
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=aaa6ea8f-f4167717-aaa6aa14-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-90a77ccb13782ba4&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2249
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=94ba5266-ca1afcab-94ba12fd-8607
>>> 3b36ea28-60b60d9c5490c0b6&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2249>
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=8d4e7eda-d3fee342-8d4e3e41-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-573a9d2214328b51&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2280
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=8da5c41c-d3056ad1-8da58487-
>> 8607
>>> 3b36ea28-21dd69a0e0e97c0d&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2280>
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=cdee6e28-935ef3b0-cdee2eb3-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-93599a2537e07013&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2324
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f75faa3f-a9ff04f2-f75feaa4-8607
>>> 3b36ea28-ded42b3464c0a2bb&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2324>
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=cd09d961-93b944f9-cd0999fa-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-f2ec806470c8e679&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2330
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=e48cd74b-ba2c7986-e48c97d0-
>> 8607
>>> 3b36ea28-1ba367ea7b2d71fc&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2330>
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=b394c5d4-ed24584c-b394854f-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-1fa05a73c3a06088&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2548
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=e2145460-bcb4faad-e21414fb-
>> 8607
>>> 3b36ea28-3e737b266ad059ce&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2548>
>>>
>>>      So the above ones is the ones I wonder if we simply should have the
>>>      RFC-editor apply before publication? I think this is simply
>>>      correcting things that the WG knows are wrong in RFC5661 and it
>>>      could help the reader. I am aware of this is not following what was
>>>      previous said about Errata, but I think this category should have
>>>      been included as they appear very straight forward and have been
>>>      previously classified as relevant for understanding and have risk of
>>>      causing implementation errors. If the WG participants think we
>>>      should stick with previous path and not include them I will listen.
>>>      However, take a look at them before you make that assessment.
>>>
>>> All of these appear to be errors that might be typically caught and
>>> corrected during AUTH48, with one exception:
>>>
>>> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f72d2fec-a99db274-f72d6f77-86d8a
>>> 30ca42b-ae756ed4ef9082d8&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=
>>> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2249
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=8fa96a97-d109c45a-8fa92a0c-8607
>>> 3b36ea28-bf9a924cced2a88a&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2249>
>>>
>>> appears to be technical, and therefore requires review by WG members
>>> familiar with implementations of CB_LAYOUTRECALL to avoid protocol
>>> changes that would impact interoperability among existing
>> implementations.
>>>
>>> With the exception of 2249, I am in favor of addressing these minor
>>> issues before publication. I do not believe addressing them would
>>> result in undue delay.
>>>
>>>      There are two Errata that are listed as editorial and verified that
>>>      are not straight forward nor necessary only editorial
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=04b9d705-5a094a9d-04b9979e-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-66085810e0d28c85&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2328
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=7f12ac8c-21b20241-7f12ec17-8607
>>> 3b36ea28-ef8e722add5a545a&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2328>
>>>
>>>      This appears to an Error code that is missing in RFC5661 and should
>>>      be listed in Section 15.1.16. This doesn’t have text that can just
>>>      be applied.
>>>
>>>      https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=73ab5727-2d1bcabf-73ab17bc-
>> 86d8a30ca42b-fd69e6d90af5e081&q=1&e=d7ee75d1-de87-4991-bddf-
>> 8b6e98b0f13c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid4215
>>>
>>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=e27bb61d-bcdb18d0-e27bf686-
>> 8607
>>> 3b36ea28-9e3f3185e9f7c66a&q=1&e=343dab95-e554-48c9-9a78-
>> f653c2b76745&u
>>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid4215>
>>>
>>>      This Errata appears to fix a unclear statement in fourth paragraph
>>>      of Section 22.2. However, I don’t see this as Editorial as it
>>>      changes the IANA procedure even if what is currently written is
>>>      confusing.
>>>
>>>      So these I would leave for the proper bis to take care of.
>>>
>>>      Cheers
>>>
>>>      Magnus Westerlund
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Chuck Lever
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfsv4 mailing list
>>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4