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

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

Hi Magnus -

> On Jul 29, 2020, at 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 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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3558 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3558>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2062 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2062>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2249 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2249>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2280 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2280>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2324 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2324>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2330 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2330>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2548 <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 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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2249

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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2328 <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.
>  
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4215 <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.
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Magnus Westerlund

--
Chuck Lever