Re: [tsvwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7605 (4437)

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, John,

My primary issue at this point is their taking 2 weeks to respond AND
not involving me in confirming the errata.

Additionally, the idea that we can't fix silly production errors like
this within a few days seems ridiculous in this day and age. Some errors
won't be found until there are many eyes, and some corrections don't
change content. We ought to be able to do better.

I've already asked the ADs to raise this.

Joe

On 8/21/2015 3:44 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Can someone directly involved (such as you, Joe, or Spencer as
> the relevant AD) bring this directly to the attention of the
> RSOC and/or IAB?  I agree about sub-par and believe there should
> be an explanation to the community as to what happened.  The IAB
> and RSOC are supposed to be our accountability mechanism.
> 
> best,
>    john
> 
> 
> --On Friday, August 21, 2015 14:43 -0700 Joe Touch
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> I finally heard back from Heather after pinging her directly.
>>
>> Heather indicated that the RFC Editor approved the errata
>> below. They failed to answer any of my questions as to how
>> this happened or where in the process it happened. IMO, if
>> they want to accept this errata, then they are taking
>> responsibility for it.
>>
>> I consider their handling of this issue sub-par, and encourage
>> the chairs to bring it up as appropriate.
>>
>> Regardless, that's where things are and where they are likely
>> to remain.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On 8/12/2015 11:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> FWIW - I've contact the RFC-Editor about this; it isn't being
>>> ignored. I'll report back when I hear back.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> On 8/7/2015 11:21 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7605,
>>>> "Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport Port Numbers".
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7605&eid=4437
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Type: Editorial
>>>> Reported by: John Klensin <[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>> Section: Abstract
>>>>
>>>> Original Text
>>>> -------------
>>>> It provides designer guidance to requesters or users of port
>>>> numbers on how to interact with IANA using the processes
>>>> defined in RFC 6335; thus, this document complements (but
>>>> does not update) that document. It provides guidelines for
>>>> designers regarding how to interact with the IANA processes
>>>> defined in RFC 6335, thus serving to complement (but not
>>>> update) that document.
>>>>
>>>> Corrected Text
>>>> --------------
>>>> It provides designer guidance to requesters or users of port
>>>> numbers on how to interact with IANA using the processes
>>>> defined in RFC 6335; thus, this document complements (but
>>>> does not update) that document.
>>>>
>>>> Notes
>>>> -----
>>>> I think those two sentences say exactly the same thing and
>>>> that the presence of both indicates that someone wasn't
>>>> paying quite enough attention during AUTH48 or earlier.  If
>>>> they are intended to communicate different information, it
>>>> isn't clear what that is and the result is massively
>>>> confusing.
>>>>
>>>> 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 (IESG) can log in to change the status
>>>> and edit the report, if necessary. 
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC7605 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-11)
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Title               : Recommendations on Using Assigned
>>>> Transport Port Numbers Publication Date    : August 2015
>>>> Author(s)           : J. Touch
>>>> Category            : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
>>>> Source              : Transport Area Working Group
>>>> Area                : Transport
>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>>
> 
> 
>