[Teas] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9522 (7815)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 20 February 2024 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13194C14F5F9 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:51:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 rr77kKhnHiAG for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (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 C4F7CC14F6B4 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id A225618F7E1E; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:50:58 -0800 (PST)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: nmalykh@protokols.ru, adrian@olddog.co.uk, teas@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240220115058.A225618F7E1E@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:50:58 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Jk5j2j6OV5985RmDyIr5DOLBTXI>
Subject: [Teas] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9522 (7815)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:51:04 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9522,
"Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7815

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@protokols.ru>

Section: 5.1.3.8

Original Text
-------------
   IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC5470] defines an architecture
   that is very similar to the RTFM architecture and includes Metering,
   Exporting, and Collecting Processes.  [RFC5472] describes the
   applicability of IPFIX and makes a comparison with RTFM, pointing out
   that, architecturally, while RTM talks about devices, IPFIX deals
   with processes to clarify that multiple of those processes may be co-
   located on the same machine.  The IPFIX protocol [RFC7011] is widely
   implemented.

Corrected Text
--------------
   IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC5470] defines an architecture
   that is very similar to the RTFM architecture and includes Metering,
   Exporting, and Collecting Processes.  [RFC5472] describes the
   applicability of IPFIX and makes a comparison with RTFM, pointing out
   that, architecturally, while RTFM talks about devices, IPFIX deals
   with processes to clarify that multiple of those processes may be co-
   located on the same machine.  The IPFIX protocol [RFC7011] is widely
   implemented.

Notes
-----
Missing a letter in the acronym RTFM.

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.

--------------------------------------
RFC9522 (draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-27)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering
Publication Date    : January 2024
Author(s)           : A. Farrel, Ed.
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG