Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592)
Chris Benson <cbenson@adax.com> Mon, 01 November 2010 19:14 UTC
Return-Path: <cbenson@adax.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7D53A6A66 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sZ2l1NVqXjQe for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.adax.com (mail1.adax.com [208.201.231.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4120F3A69C7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from adax (adax [12.0.0.88]) by mail1.adax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56492120A29; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by adax (Postfix, from userid 243) id 69D448EDBF; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by adax (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640428EDBE; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:17:23 -0700
From: Chris Benson <cbenson@adax.com>
X-X-Sender: cbenson@adax.adax
To: Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592)
In-Reply-To: <740173B4-6CA8-4781-9180-F7DDF3A5E3F8@lurchi.franken.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1011011204150.14985@adax.adax>
References: <20101029133521.A1E38E06EF@rfc-editor.org> <021B5259-1A6E-4C0C-BD83-674D00F3EB4B@lakerest.net> <49FD141B-D7CE-4CB1-891E-78A7BA2DDC9F@lurchi.franken.de> <4CCAEB04.9040507@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <740173B4-6CA8-4781-9180-F7DDF3A5E3F8@lurchi.franken.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com>, tsvwg list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Randy Stewart <randall@lakerest.net>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:14:01 -0000
Hi folks, In my opinion, the SECOND sentence of proposed "NEW" text within 14.1 below is not quite correct. >> [formerly proposed] NEW: >> The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an >> IETF Review action, as defined in [RFC5226]. Documentation of a new >> chunk MUST contain the following information: My suggested NEW: The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an IETF Review action, as defined in [RFC5226]. Documentation of a new chunk type MUST contain the following information: ^^^^ "new chunk" is used throughout the document to mean newly arrived (not re-transmitted) packet components, and that is not what is to be documented. Sorry about this extra level of pedanticism. Chris Benson. On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Michael T?xen wrote: >> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:53:00 +0200 >> From: Michael T?xen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> >> To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> >> Cc: James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com>, tsvwg list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, >> Randy Stewart <randall@lakerest.net> >> Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592) >> >> Hi Gorry, >> --- >> OLD: >> >> The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an >> ^^^^^^^^^ >> IETF Review action, as defined in [RFC5226]. Documentation of a new >> chunk MUST contain the following information: >> >> NEW: >> The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an >> IETF Review action, as defined in [RFC5226]. Documentation of a new >> chunk MUST contain the following information: >> --- >> Best regards >> Michael >> >> On Oct 29, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >> >> > >> > Michael, >> > >> > These seem to be straightforward corrections. Please propose some corrections in the form below, and we can make sure the RFC-Ed notes these. >> > >> > --- >> > OLD: >> > xxx >> > NEW: >> > xxx >> > >> > --- >> > >> > Gorry >> > >> > On 29/10/2010 16:19, Michael T?xen wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> we should possibly fix the wording also in >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-chunk-flags-02 >> >> during AUTH48. >> >> >> >> TSVWG chairs: Is that possible? >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Randy Stewart wrote: >> >> >> >>> Dear RFC Editor: >> >>> >> >>> The Errata is correct.. Tom and I discussed this on the list >> >>> and I agree with it. We obviously made a cut-and paste typo.. since >> >>> chunk types are different than parameter types ;-) >> >>> >> >>> Best Wishes >> >>> >> >>> Randall Stewart >> >>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 6:35 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4960, >> >>>> "Stream Control Transmission Protocol". >> >>>> >> >>>> -------------------------------------- >> >>>> You may review the report below and at: >> >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4960&eid=2592 >> >>>> >> >>>> -------------------------------------- >> >>>> Type: Editorial >> >>>> Reported by: tom petch<ietfc@btconnect.com> >> >>>> >> >>>> Section: 14.1 >> >>>> >> >>>> Original Text >> >>>> ------------- >> >>>> 14.1. IETF-Defined Chunk Extension >> >>>> >> >>>> The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an >> >>>> IETF Consensus action, as defined in [RFC2434]. Documentation of the >> >>>> chunk parameter MUST contain the following information: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Corrected Text >> >>>> -------------- >> >>>> 14.1. IETF-Defined Chunk Extension >> >>>> >> >>>> The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an >> >>>> IETF Consensus action, as defined in [RFC2434]. Documentation of the >> >>>> chunk type MUST contain the following information: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Notes >> >>>> ----- >> >>>> The OLD text relates to parameter types, and not chunk types, and already appears, correctly, in section 14.2. Section 14.1 is about chunk types,as the NEW text says. >> >>>> >> >>>> Instructions: >> >>>> ------------- >> >>>> This errata 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. >> >>>> >> >>>> -------------------------------------- >> >>>> RFC4960 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-05) >> >>>> -------------------------------------- >> >>>> Title : Stream Control Transmission Protocol >> >>>> Publication Date : September 2007 >> >>>> Author(s) : R. Stewart, Ed. >> >>>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> >>>> Source : Transport Area Working Group >> >>>> Area : Transport >> >>>> Stream : IETF >> >>>> Verifying Party : IESG >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> ----- >> >>> Randall Stewart >> >>> randall@lakerest.net >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >>
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592) Randy Stewart
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592) Michael Tüxen
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592) Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592) Michael Tüxen
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4960 (2592) Chris Benson