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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Can someone directly involved (such as you, Joe, or Spencer as
the relevant AD) bring this directly to the attention of the
RSOC and/or IAB?  I agree about sub-par and believe there should
be an explanation to the community as to what happened.  The IAB
and RSOC are supposed to be our accountability mechanism.

best,
   john


--On Friday, August 21, 2015 14:43 -0700 Joe Touch
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, all,
> 
> I finally heard back from Heather after pinging her directly.
> 
> Heather indicated that the RFC Editor approved the errata
> below. They failed to answer any of my questions as to how
> this happened or where in the process it happened. IMO, if
> they want to accept this errata, then they are taking
> responsibility for it.
> 
> I consider their handling of this issue sub-par, and encourage
> the chairs to bring it up as appropriate.
> 
> Regardless, that's where things are and where they are likely
> to remain.
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 8/12/2015 11:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>