Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200304095833.277C3F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 11:06:15 +0100
Cc: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, kk@teraoptic.com, black_david@emc.com, 
 IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <10D606C7-7291-422A-B2A3-1A4B4FA17332@kuehlewind.net>
References: <20200304095833.277C3F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Archived-At:
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/luhprr2yL4Ocvmkcm_wB3gbU87A>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3168 (4754)
Precedence: list

Hi tsvwg,

I just moved this errata to =E2=80=9CHeld for Document Update=E2=80=9D =
as there are multiple points in this errata which go beyond just being =
an errata.

However there is also errata 4997 which only address the missing update:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4997

Should this errata be verified and the update tag added?

Mirja



> On 4. Mar 2020, at 10:58, RFC Errata System =
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>=20
> The following errata report has been held for document update=20
> for RFC3168, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) =
to IP".=20
>=20
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4754
>=20
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Held for Document Update
> Type: Editorial
>=20
> Reported by: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
> Date Reported: 2016-07-31
> Held by: Mirja K=C3=BChlewind (IESG)
>=20
> Section: Header block
>=20
> Original Text
> -------------
> Updates: 2474, 2401, 2003, 793
>=20
>=20
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Updates: 2474, 2401, 2003, 2473, 793
>=20
> Notes
> -----
> RFC 3168 updates RFC 2473 but does not indicate this in its header =
block.
>=20
> Specifically, Section 9 of RFC 3168 defined processing of the ECN =
field for Encapsulated Packets, which updated section 6.4 of RFC 2473, =
where the creation of the "IPv6 Tunnel Packet Traffic Class" was =
specified. RFC3168 also updated the decapsulation behaviour of the ECN =
field in an IPv6 tunnel header, which had not been specified in RFC2473.
>=20
> Note 1: As well as tagging RFC3168 with this erratum, RFC2473 needs to =
be tagged (in the RFC index and associated tools outputs) to indicate =
that it is updated by RFC3168.
>=20
> Note 2: Originally, the "Updates:" header of RFC3168 did not contain =
"2003", which was added as a result of Errata ID 2660.
>=20
> Note 3: The first sentence of section 9.1 in RFC3168 should also be =
modified as follows:
> Original text:
>   The encapsulation of IP packet headers in tunnels is used in many
>   places, including IPsec and IP in IP [RFC2003].
> Corrected text:
>   The encapsulation of IP packet headers in tunnels is used in many
>   places, including IPsec and IP in IP [RFC2003, 2473].
> Comment:=20
>   Nowadays RFC2473 would be a normative reference, but RFC3168 =
pre-dated the categorisation of references into normative and =
informative.
>=20
> Note 4: Section 9 of RFC3168 has since been updated by RFC6040. =
Nonetheless, that is already correctly identified in RFC6040.
>=20
> This reported errata has be moved to "Held for Document Update". While =
the reported problem is correct and needs to be addressed, it is not =
just an errata but a larger oversight at publication time.
>=20
> --------------------------------------
> 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
>=20
>=20