[tsvwg] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9435 (8081)

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Actually valid editorial ones are accepted and presented as errata and applied in the html rendering with inline errata that can be found from the RFC-editor RFC page.
For example RFC 4960 (SCTP) has a number of errata where several are editorial: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc4960.html

Cheers

Magnus

From: C. M. Heard <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2024 at 16:33
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [tsvwg] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9435 (8081)
In the case of an editorial erratum such as this, isn't the custom to accept the erratum but place it in a "hold for document update" status?

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 6:56 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

This has been reported as editorial hence RFC editor will handle this.

//Zahed

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 15:40, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi, Gorry,

The correction is valid, but as you note not substantive.

Aren’t those still recordable as “editorial” rather than “technical”, though?

Editorial
a spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not affect the technical meaning

Joe

—
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com<http://www.strayalpha.com/>


On Aug 20, 2024, at 6:33 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On 17/08/2024 06:17, RFC Errata System wrote:

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9435,

"Considerations for Assigning a New Recommended Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)".



--------------------------------------

You may review the report below and at:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8081



--------------------------------------

Type: Editorial

Reported by: Angelos Vassiliou <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>



Section: 1



Original Text

-------------

A common set of DSCPs are defined for both IPv4 and IPv6



Corrected Text

--------------

A common set of DSCPs is defined for both IPv4 and IPv6



Notes

-----

The subject of the sentence, "A common set" is singular, but the verb is plural.



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.



--------------------------------------

RFC9435 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13)

--------------------------------------

Title               : Considerations for Assigning a New Recommended Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)

Publication Date    : July 2023

Author(s)           : A. Custura, G. Fairhurst, R. Secchi

Category            : INFORMATIONAL

Source              : Transport and Services Working Group

Stream              : IETF

Verifying Party     : IESG

Thanks for letting us know.

The intent was to describe one common set, but an alternative that describes multiple sets of DSCPs by PHB groups would be equivalent.


While I do see the gammar could be improved, I don't think we need to record this, because I do not see an ambiguity in meaning. So,  in this case, I'd recommend we reject this Errata.

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst

(Author)