Re: [Pppext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2661 (2049)

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 24 February 2010 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730553A84EC for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:54:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.566, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1xf89CF8gtQP for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87A33A7A63 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C1C2D291; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:56:09 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcjfZzALlIR1; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:56:09 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B737C2D287; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:56:08 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4B84BF77.70103@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:56:07 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
References: <20100223021651.193E6130016@rfc-editor.org> <022d01cab4fe$65ae6020$310b2060$@net>
In-Reply-To: <022d01cab4fe$65ae6020$310b2060$@net>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:14:26 -0800
Cc: "pppext@ietf.org" <pppext@ietf.org>, "palter@zev.net" <palter@zev.net>, "whj@puzhong.org" <whj@puzhong.org>, "james.d.carlson@sun.com" <james.d.carlson@sun.com>, "vandys@cisco.com" <vandys@cisco.com>, "gurdeep@microsoft.com" <gurdeep@microsoft.com>, "rdroms.ietf@gmail.com" <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, "acr@del.com" <acr@del.com>, "townsley@cisco.com" <townsley@cisco.com>, 'RFC Errata System' <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2661 (2049)
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:54:07 -0000

Its editorial. I agree with the errata. Based on our policies below I believe the right classification is Hold for Document Update.

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html

Jari

Glen Zorn kirjoitti:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2661,
"Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2661&eid=2049" rel="nofollow">http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2661&eid=2049

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Wang Haojian <whj@puzhong.org>

Section: 1.2

Original Text
-------------
DSLAM

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Access Module

Corrected Text
--------------
DSLAM

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Access Multiplexer

Notes
-----
I think 'Multiplexer' is more appropriate

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.
    
I think that classifying this as a technical error may be stretching it a
bit, but I have no problem w/the change.

  
--------------------------------------
RFC2661 (draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-16)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"
Publication Date    : August 1999
Author(s)           : W. Townsley, A. Valencia, A. Rubens, G. Pall, G.
Zorn, B. Palter
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
    

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext