IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Raw] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9450 (7637)

Fabrice Theoleyre <fabrice.theoleyre@cnrs.fr> Mon, 11 September 2023 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <fabrice.theoleyre@cnrs.fr>
X-Original-To: raw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: raw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040EDC151533 for <raw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Sep 2023 23:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Z7PvFTBEE3U for <raw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Sep 2023 23:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.mhg.thalesgroup.com (smtp01.mhg.thalesgroup.com [185.116.133.240]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA53C151074 for <raw@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Sep 2023 23:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3D71DFCE-68E7-49E2-82E8-8DDFC5F2B2B9"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
From: Fabrice Theoleyre <fabrice.theoleyre@cnrs.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20230910193746.9CA5ACDA2C@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 08:03:16 +0200
CC: peter@akayla.com, "Carlos J. Bernardos" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr>, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, raw@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <14326268-95B8-4213-99DB-DFE569A87842@cnrs.fr>
References: <20230910193746.9CA5ACDA2C@rfcpa.amsl.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
X-Originating-IP: [10.78.0.28]
X-ClientProxiedBy: cnrdc1excmbx01p.cnrp-ces.adds (10.78.43.5) To CNRDC1EXCMBX11P.cnrp-ces.adds (10.78.43.21)
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-14.0.0.3152-9.1.1006-27868.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No-10--16.211600-5.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: XYZjbEcsSe5+UXfwA2LEE/5nNXbGUpdQsf0TZBogsdLO4IB3sFRqtlpj n692i6cI6c4slkdY4twUTDeAncUc6GLTycXTYfFqvGu4mGn+c/9BtotsW9XN/y0x8J2DopENbPz TaVUOuupTn52K/FX+iYRMyN/ppM4nIrczxEfiirDKbCUzYlWDZnzLTypR/JvIBAFJPqqEKzfJ5S XtoJPLyNVhYW3XBtfssmc+HzD5HmjWNgeLUII7jeKXWUHCfKZEYijqrfN6jnBsCltwTmzMU5zip wKe4Je1l5nAbAdMxFTepbtLyHY6KCHmjNSy4BIi1B0Hk1Q1KyJKsLJuUjh4mWc8Uo6La8Pbymsk /wUE4hrVWtsKyWjUg3AjODkFuJaWdZjNx3o1nZvEWwyFYmmiXaarxxn71kfG
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
X-TMASE-Result: 10--16.211600-5.000000
X-TMASE-Version: SMEX-14.0.0.3152-9.1.1006-27868.005
X-TM-SNTS-SMTP: 0CF505515DDB835464ABB4E82625D58F0BF9C131B52D61581F5ECD8098CD049C2002:9
X-FE-Attachment-Name: smime.p7s
X-FEAS-Client-IP: 100.64.3.11
X-FE-Last-Public-Client-IP: 100.64.3.11
X-FE-Policy-ID: 12:4:2:cnrs.fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/BRwbIzNaNVWgGo-fptJ2ZKAeOBc>
Subject: Re: [Raw] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9450 (7637)
X-BeenThere: raw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: reliable and available wireless <raw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/raw>, <mailto:raw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/raw/>
List-Post: <mailto:raw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:raw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw>, <mailto:raw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 06:03:58 -0000

Thank you for your careful reading of the RFC, and your remark. 

In this context, "real applications" mean "applications that exist". Actually, these real applications are also real-time because this is the target of RAW. But the focus on this sentence is to insist on the fact that these applications are something concrete. 


> Le 10 sept. 2023 à 21:37, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> a écrit :
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9450,
> "Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) Use Cases".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7637
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
> 
> Section: 1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> IEEE 802.11 has identified a set of real applications
> [IEEE80211RTA], which may use the IEEE802.11 standards.  They
> typically emphasize strict end-to-end delay requirements.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> IEEE 802.11 has identified a set of real-time applications
> [IEEE80211RTA], which may use the IEEE 802.11 standards.  They
> typically emphasize strict end-to-end delay requirements.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Given both the context and the title of the referenced document, "real-time" makes more sense here than "real".
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum 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  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9450 (draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) Use Cases
> Publication Date    : August 2023
> Author(s)           : CJ. Bernardos, Ed., G. Papadopoulos, P. Thubert, F. Theoleyre
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : Reliable and Available Wireless
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email