Re: [tsvwg] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3168 (4754)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

I don't even remember writing this Erratum, it's so old (or maybe it's 
me that's so old - don't comment on that tho).

The main reason for reporting omissions in the "Updates" header is to 
ensure that people who are responsible for implementations of updated 
RFCs know that they are meant to watch RFC3168 (and its updates). It 
would be useful if the tools view showed accepted errata to the Updates 
header below the "Updated by" field (in the grey area at the top of the 
HTML of a draft).

Any chance that this is possible?


FYI, according to the 3168 errata list, there are 3 missing refs in the 
updates header of 3168 now. But they each have a different status:

Errata ID: 2660 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2660>*Status: 
Verified* Add "Updates: 2003"
Errata ID: 4997 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4997> *Status: 
Reported *Add "Updates: 2460"
Errata ID: 4754 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4754>*Status: Held 
for Document Update *Add "Updates: 2473"


Bob

On 04/03/2020 09:58, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been held for document update
> for RFC3168, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4754
>
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Held for Document Update
> Type: Editorial
>
> Reported by: Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
> Date Reported: 2016-07-31
> Held by: Mirja Kühlewind (IESG)
>
> Section: Header block
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> Updates: 2474, 2401, 2003, 793
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Updates: 2474, 2401, 2003, 2473, 793
>
> Notes
> -----
> RFC 3168 updates RFC 2473 but does not indicate this in its header block.
>
> Specifically, Section 9 of RFC 3168 defined processing of the ECN field for Encapsulated Packets, which updated section 6.4 of RFC 2473, where the creation of the "IPv6 Tunnel Packet Traffic Class" was specified. RFC3168 also updated the decapsulation behaviour of the ECN field in an IPv6 tunnel header, which had not been specified in RFC2473.
>
> Note 1: As well as tagging RFC3168 with this erratum, RFC2473 needs to be tagged (in the RFC index and associated tools outputs) to indicate that it is updated by RFC3168.
>
> Note 2: Originally, the "Updates:" header of RFC3168 did not contain "2003", which was added as a result of Errata ID 2660.
>
> Note 3: The first sentence of section 9.1 in RFC3168 should also be modified as follows:
> Original text:
>     The encapsulation of IP packet headers in tunnels is used in many
>     places, including IPsec and IP in IP [RFC2003].
> Corrected text:
>     The encapsulation of IP packet headers in tunnels is used in many
>     places, including IPsec and IP in IP [RFC2003, 2473].
> Comment:
>     Nowadays RFC2473 would be a normative reference, but RFC3168 pre-dated the categorisation of references into normative and informative.
>
> Note 4: Section 9 of RFC3168 has since been updated by RFC6040. Nonetheless, that is already correctly identified in RFC6040.
>
> This reported errata has be moved to "Held for Document Update". While the reported problem is correct and needs to be addressed, it is not just an errata but a larger oversight at publication time.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC3168 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-04)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP
> Publication Date    : September 2001
> Author(s)           : K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, D. Black
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Transport Area Working Group
> Area                : Transport
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/