Re: [P2PSIP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6940 (3885)

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Sat, 15 February 2014 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3924C1A026A for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:30:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 jPv3-OiUL1MY for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13C61A0259 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:30:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id wp18so15114543obc.8 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:30:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=B+3tItmKipdQznW43ZOazoGpJC8fyfCmYybrr03ObbA=; b=Tjp6gmR2xHHD3qY+7yRln0pSXDEUy2Qw0JMMuaue/0eT3RB1yroE+arqnYZp9zEqVM g3U1DeWtM1o9qOLAs1iJ6QmsAhkJv/Y6UGQAN+NwMDRI1cy0zCnU+AajlR40rA9tbkJu F9otgzp1quMuEReekO/2mgmZl96B1tvyoMUrSMV1QvQEKHvT5TnEbiUMhFC04r1uE7lB z2OlrdRIxSaxgS6C2Y4MsymIUuwQR/dyKITUJdnTEUX7PiicDBLyKbYBoAJhYoIvwRNB rHBlLDbMbfznbgmbPSb9e108NV3+UdqYkoJsrd7K5jmS1SVX9yPk9dN/pbC5mYE+DD8Z soYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlm1VumGaGAKAgrNhF1dUscTwhPA+k52188Lqmsq2mNYWu+EDRdYXvOlagQUylQGyycVLEG
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.134.200 with SMTP id pm8mr12499885oeb.40.1392489047958; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.69.102 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:30:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140208001733.724FB7FC39B@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20140208001733.724FB7FC39B@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:30:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQEt3cKQUhWS_bSEYiPQ8=Q3_iR3OVgprmgr-N=TQSbjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b4178310ebe5404f2761f68"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/wNAznW1CYkQitdKuK5p7Tx4IMc0
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, p2psip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6940 (3885)
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:30:52 -0000

I have marked as Verified.  I wonder if this is the shortest time from
publication to erratum?


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:17 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6940,
> "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6940&eid=3885
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
>
> Section: 14.9
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>    | Reserved                            | 0x8000..0xFFFE |  RFC 6940 |
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    | Reserved                            | 0x8000..0xFFFF |  RFC 6940 |
>
> Notes
> -----
> Clearly there was some confusion and at least one of the authors thought
> that 0xFFFE was the largest 16 bit integer when in fact it should have been
> 0xFFFF. I would like to thank Pearl Liang for catching this mistake.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6940 (draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base
> Protocol
> Publication Date    : January 2014
> Author(s)           : C. Jennings, B. Lowekamp, Ed., E. Rescorla, S.
> Baset, H. Schulzrinne
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol
> Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>