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

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.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 E38E73A0B70; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9cjJ9AhY41h4; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x629.google.com (mail-ej1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A27013A0BA1; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x629.google.com with SMTP id a21so26324171ejj.10; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kSeB79eTRQa6XzKW3g+tip4XjLQg2r8KXBircbimzao=; b=OgmJxAag2br7d29Zd4BFhfltFz/vqvmkCBUqugkmPMsU3V7JgcboUPvky2fWbCn5tU 2vrW7QIw2k+g+Ei+SOopL/Zjg8zs8iZn5CGvngdzPmuUJYMiksUNKV4H3IlHG9MlQwV6 TMOFEM/OUSOTphi7wFjxYG16Xlf5dfFimswY6Sf1k9dobPTec5DkBKgEYziMHXxJIkfY qrK5cTXjJRV7ztjYdJQLSi2oO6+jgfE/FKbUAuqmwD1g14CUqbmSuxw2lstjHZ4FU233 Pec0pG84NoPo6PokG0QpwErsdDQx46s51ahaDDaL1NvnJjMS7xb9A/aPz6Ibwlr9R75K lQNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kSeB79eTRQa6XzKW3g+tip4XjLQg2r8KXBircbimzao=; b=W71zUCZbOWJAg6QmLo33l7J5umkBeenC0a2wSw1HpOMtyt6pd9emjAv5YLkgEu3TUh eNeuM7nV50Ubz8hr9NzEzM3fPiIW8MeU/gfziqPDXWsqzEuYA61GuKZt+pv0vvLLuFHv cqEi7NQhgXfU6+8UpbTWOHcW+Vld9E9o7jKPYaoENunXaN5oMMGv8CdQaH2T1ataOZYb l43kPBo2Sp5cubAEnb7ww1dQlXGYIG228R6pcahIK2s7aBvJ5EgInxBvSx35X6UGz/9/ su16P8xwNriLAyBU2ZkUvrxQWLqy4vLuSurB58FtMNrLry44O1KO147cwX9WVK5j7I4U dyTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Vt44880dz8JBoE2LxF9uI1673iIyL6OBYnw4WM3Ckqu46UrMs hcsIrONC+Re1ZFSfuxe6hitGoCzbAMEh4iNiqQg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwL6uMMi9Xv9mKD3P9CAQBZWTr8B69sWbn6JGAY8OoM0JHP9u3GmyHzIW4kiGDtC0rT8QQ4BQyTeDKEXQ2g8w=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:528d:: with SMTP id c13mr481813ejm.61.1596075440151; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <HE1PR0702MB3772011E83C71FC05A28983F95700@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0702MB3772011E83C71FC05A28983F95700@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:17:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jc=-q8g_Wdp7aV+WSsjMRq6MeNCznQv=Nx5vAS6WGYHug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a5201a05ab9f4506"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/3puCIj6Ob6_SYnWI7k9g0Z6i8Rw>
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 02:17:24 -0000

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 5:01 AM Magnus Westerlund <
magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Authors and WG
>
>
>
> This relates to the ongoing AUTH48 for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns
>

I'm hoping it won't be going on.uch longer. I don't want it to go past
AUTH192.

>
>
> 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.
>
What two erratta reports did they ask about?

Are they working on these updates now?  I'd like to keep good track of all
the last-minute changes being merged into this document

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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3558
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2062
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2249
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2280
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2324
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2330
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2548
>
>
>
> So the above ones is the ones I wonder if we simply should have the
> RFC-editor apply before publication?
>
I'll ask the rfc editor of they can address these expeditiously, in the
context of AUTH48.  If they can, then it is just a question of Chuck and me
giving final approval to the AUTH48 changes.

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.
>

Given that you have requested this change, I don't see waiting for a group
assessment of these verified errata reports in the middle of AUTH48.

>
>
>
>
> There are two Errata that are listed as editorial and verified that are
> not straight forward nor necessary only editorial
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2328
>
> 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
>
Doesn't seem very pressing.

>
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4215
>
> 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.
>
Fair enough.

>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
>
>
>
>
>
>