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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 12 August 2015 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A0D1A033B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GHZ25BDe-SeA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D81D1A006D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7CISCiF023481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, mls.ietf@gmail.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, david.black@emc.com
References: <20150807182104.0B563180207@rfc-editor.org>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <55CB903C.7040402@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:28:12 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150807182104.0B563180207@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/SE8yWJJMqO_Nmd7X6jA50PiWU9g>
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com, tsvwg@ietf.org, touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7605 (4437)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:28:44 -0000

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 <john-ietf@jck.com>
> 
> 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
>