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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi David and WG,

WG, I am requesting your input on this matter. I intended to make a decision on
Monday (3rd of August) after 12:00 CEST.  

Please see inline. 

On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 22:17 -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 5:01 AM Magnus Westerlund <
> [e-mail]> 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?

They asked me about Errata 2330 and 2548. Both very basic typos, which I believe
they spotted in working with the document.

> 
> 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

No, they are not working on this. They are waiting for me with your input to
tell them what to do with it. 

> 
> > 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.

Yes, the intention is to deal with this now before concluding AUTH48. And having
looked at these Errata, this is less than an hours work to incorporate into the
document. So from a work perspective, from the point I make a decision to do
this change (if that is what I conclude) would take the RFC-editor less than a
work day to get the authors the updated document, and then you authors would
have to verify that these changes are properly done. From my perspective it is
likely that this input period is the longest delay here. 


> 
> > 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.

No, I have not requested these changes yet. I am asking the WG if you think this
is the right step? I personally think it makes sense to incorporate the above
listed Errata but no additional errata. However, I want the WG feedback on this
matter. 

> >  
> >  
> > 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
> >  
> >  
> >  
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------