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

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

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]> 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] <[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
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2024, at 6:33 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[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]> <[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)
>>
>>
>>