Re: [OPSAWG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8907 (7754)

["Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Many thanks for catching the error.

The mistake is correctly identified, and the proposed resolution is correct. That is:

In section 5.1, the incorrect current text:
“This field is optional (since the information may not be available). The rem_addr_len indicates the length of the user field, in bytes.”
Should read:
“This field is optional (since the information may not be available). The rem_addr_len indicates the length of the rem_addr field, in bytes.”
In section 6.2, the incorrect current  text:
“This field matches the rem_addr field in "Authentication" (Section 5<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8907#Authentication>). The rem_addr_len indicates the length of the port field, in bytes.”
Should read:
“This field matches the rem_addr field in "Authentication" (Section 5<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8907#Authentication>). The rem_addr_len indicates the length of the rem_addr field, in bytes.”

Is there a procedure, or would it be useful, to upload a new version of the document?

Thanks!





From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 12 January 2024 at 16:57
To: Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8907 (7754)
Hi Rebecca, authors, OPSAWG,

I think that this errata is valid for both 5.1 and 6.1.  I also noted a similar bug for 5.3 for the user_msg_len field.  I’ve updated the errata report to also cover this.  My intent is verify this errata.

Authors, OPSAWG, please let me know if you have any opinion on this.

Regards,
Rob



From: Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 10 January 2024 at 17:34
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8907 (7754)
Hi Robert,

We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/).

Note: A similar issue appears in Section 5.1 (perhaps “user field” here should also read “rem_addr” field):

      The rem_addr_len indicates the length of the user
      field, in bytes.

You may review the report at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7754

Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/

Further information on errata can be found at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

Thank you.

RFC Editor/rv


> On Jan 10, 2024, at 4:36 AM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8907,
> "The Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) Protocol".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7754
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Joao Fracarolli <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 6.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The rem_addr_len indicates the length of the port field, in bytes.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The rem_addr_len indicates the length of the rem_addr field, in bytes.
>
> Notes
> -----
> Substitute "port field" with "rem_addr field"
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8907 (draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-18)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : The Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) Protocol
> Publication Date    : September 2020
> Author(s)           : T. Dahm, A. Ota, D.C. Medway Gash, D. Carrel, L. Grant
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : Operations and Management Area Working Group
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>