Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (6494)
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 24 March 2021 23:57 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2F83A12E9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Dixa_rQgua4y for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3DB13A12C8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id z136so115372iof.10 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rsqckzKVkx2aH+9Aiaz6V7SBuTF6c7uUicrFSjO2nBE=; b=CKzq4EqwnggrtKx+XLdrpO3ToYyG0OUhzY2PiFrHhX1pviBDWcLpcAhyA+FuypATaN TqqQjouFQOWWq5RrV5LAYNkoeCgNYBRfqWB/6hMXWtW0wJyIli7e0S7+3TKWLx1SCupa Ov3jP5UZTs5dlJ8kVdoC1k+GMfNq/BwjXK+UrOJweX7pLSsXvu0kGKpHtQ577Uian+z8 uVNPCx4hSmtkk9ess00HQCsIqgLESaQVLkaRf94flTxDpm3KkFgxk5pU5E3MYMKgr90e EyEn44yvURNexcFWAdppJGZDsXFYdHjwXbtTJLNL0PmxHKVoTXhVudpvMeIw9ebwIR+t B14w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rsqckzKVkx2aH+9Aiaz6V7SBuTF6c7uUicrFSjO2nBE=; b=JMwVpYXBtqXg6NLt4GNkNXhL0fO83jViJFhfGupf12WPVbPVr6Pfy5T0uFmhwnuU3q ltpqrPOBqcPETrnCM5wO1iMaG8pZ4FgHdg+35ZVqX1Eq1AI5ss26uPRA+ET+fyTvKB/P 9thI1ufY8FT6RkN2g5Tgng4hGb9uwxyXgYOg4xBrifpJzfGcRu81DLf1LwlZPES53tri DMqfsrktCPhOAasxX55Y+WiwLXZNAQt11WdJstTyqdKZJ2aOCG41ImKRbqCrk6La5Gp6 wfZGoobNDios20tVQ/5B+FXevmR9KQDbOV3oz50TXzMvJhcE8LbebCZ5Be5lx4TSaAr3 DGoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531CmvbV9RvHLe+sgk0KMRWtQxZb7/oc3FwwtHm53e0Vnp3d0w37 RJVaYTPPeZnKCB+s4cycacfA1U8UQLJ6YjKTVVA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzHj4QW8ZtO9v7C3Q5StteB4aEOME/WrWHK4CrqpzndR8OqZ//DOhOKL3h9My8k5Bg9XAHw9/63WKCH7vxSNcI=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9245:: with SMTP id e5mr4371818iol.97.1616630261282; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210324202900.072ECF40721@rfc-editor.org> <8d40c87e-8e51-33c9-caf4-653b3dac2c75@bobbriscoe.net> <0B3A840A-95D2-494C-BB43-6AF14506EF6D@strayalpha.com> <b1fc1612-1f8e-0bef-8e3d-f35f68ce34b4@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <b1fc1612-1f8e-0bef-8e3d-f35f68ce34b4@bobbriscoe.net>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQtZTmG3TJ_1G6kCmqgBFxmkxKj-tP05-QwkbvHCr21PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Cc: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, kk@teraoptic.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000074fbf205be5110ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Wog7Mq1AWZxD_O84QSDb38fYvuA>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (6494)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Mar 2021 23:57:54 -0000
I'm leaning towards reject based on this discussion. Joe, perhaps if your script also checked https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc3168.html, and similar URLs, it would catch these problems? On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 4:00 PM Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote: > Joe, > > On 24/03/2021 22:13, Joseph Touch wrote: > > Hi, Bob, > > > >> On Mar 24, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote: > >> > >> Joe, > >> > >> I previously wondered myself whether RFC3168 updates RFC791 {Note 1}. > >> I came to the conclusion that the authors considered that RFC3168 > updated RFC2474 (which in turn updated RFC791). Otherwise, there would be > no reason for RFC2474 to be in the updates header as well. > > Agreed; unfortunately, RFC2474 updating RFC791 is an errata (it wasn’t > noted at original publication). > > > > This all makes it very hard to trace “what updates what”, e.g., using my > rfc-what-i-mean script, which isn’t able to track changes that are noted in > errata. > > > > (It begs whether that “updates” line ought to allow for post-publication > revision) > > [BB] If it helps, the RFC Index picks up all the errata concerning > updates, obsoletes, etc. > > I suspect the idea of updating the header block of a published RFC would > result in "the system says no". > But the grey area at the top of HTMLized RFCs could include corrected > Updates and/or Obsoletes headers. It already adds "Updated by". > > > Bob > > > > >> There is an appendix in RFC3168 on the history of the IPv4 ToS octet: > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3168#section-22 > >> It shows (to me) that RFC3168 was considered to be the latest update in > the long ancestral line of the ToS octet, rather than directly updating > RFC791: > >> > >> If it is decided that RFC3168 updates RFC791, then I think RFC3168 > ought not to also say that it updates RFC2474. > > OK, fair enough. I do think that leaving this as a cascading “updates” > is unfortunate, though. > > > > Feel free to reject the update... > > > > Joe > > > > > >> Bob > >> > >> {Note 1}: When I submitted the erratum to RFC3168 that added RFC2003 to > the Updates header: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2660 > >> > >> > >> On 24/03/2021 20:29, RFC Errata System wrote: > >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3168, > >>> "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP". > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------- > >>> You may review the report below and at: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6494 > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------- > >>> Type: Technical > >>> Reported by: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> > >>> > >>> Section: Header > >>> > >>> Original Text > >>> ------------- > >>> Updates: 2474, 2401, 793 > >>> > >>> Corrected Text > >>> -------------- > >>> Updates: 2474, 2401, 793, 791 > >>> > >>> Notes > >>> ----- > >>> This is the first standards-track RFC to assign the two unused bits of > the IP TOS byte to ECN. Granted it was suggested in RFC2481, but that was > experimental and unable to update RFC791 because it would create a downref. > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------- > >>> RFC3168 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-04) > >>> -------------------------------------- > >>> Title : The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification > (ECN) to IP > >>> Publication Date : September 2001 > >>> Author(s) : K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, D. Black > >>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > >>> Source : Transport Area Working Group > >>> Area : Transport > >>> Stream : IETF > >>> Verifying Party : IESG > >>> > >> -- > >> ________________________________________________________________ > >> Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ > >> > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ > >
- [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (6494) RFC Errata System
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (… Martin Duke
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (… Joseph Touch