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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

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
>>