IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 27 May 2014 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E821A05D3 for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 aNUb9sLySEJz for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B32B81A04F8 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a108so14154075qge.8 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bBf1rs3Xf0q/7PO1qZJ2QQEzVit1FbLRnQFzZ3TngA8=; b=V+lt3aeZuN9LR4UGEWQ1M9FhU2D3yjpq0aA+/SUpsLQ4wr824MKJQsghU2ydNHU8Ej Z7MV24+IcUbHZywuGaKVg7p7Xse7VQuUJzH46ylSh9RfUWnWkMHQmUqwuIMV36EKysCX xWCtVry0FlKyB/TJQXvrecLsb5lD+FuGoIoYW/EVKkNbUNMfOWqLNiBRgy82DsdoS6Sv HzDaxZsJxpXisdIgfYB6RdjHgPb/aJEt5M0u8YPKBepTgNqBXhZxAHdU383O9lRY+3DE 3cNSCaucX5gI2UcHzrj6bwdAqHqr4M/W7RQYsTZAVFibVP7vVGx1n5C0VG1bZf8G9JDt J3Og==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.26.179 with SMTP id 48mr43415871qgv.51.1401213592003; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.132.69 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <p06240600cfaa7881d648@99.111.97.136>
References: <20140522105930.779E218000D@rfc-editor.org> <p06240600cfa513ac7ab4@99.111.97.136> <1CD96F1912CBFF4A6A296711@192.168.1.102> <p06240604cfa5730dd57a@99.111.97.136> <CALaySJKCTkk7A=c83VJxwxpyZyDRN6oQcmDJc2NP26e0+HmFKw@mail.gmail.com> <E45DDA85C9C092E7F6D7EF90@192.168.1.102> <p06240601cfa69e50f9d0@99.111.97.136> <E1C9935044E562D41D6B9FE8@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAC4RtVD5G9cxobF2DurrNqnKyW-kMTpdVqcGbj=bQwtV2dRfJA@mail.gmail.com> <37F67EC3FAA9A5BA222CB5EA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <p06240600cfaa7881d648@99.111.97.136>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 13:59:51 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 379xOTFHUcKcQdrRvM-9d3bw2d8
Message-ID: <CALaySJJ29N-H91LNYLaxYGuzYD5LJiVxmNcgOKm35WkH8Fa4_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yam/CP94ZO7yApl6PCd8za87HkLO3zc
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>, Yet Another Mail Working Group <yam@ietf.org>, SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995)
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 17:59:57 -0000

*** ACTION FOR RFC EDITOR ***

>>>  OK... then please agree on an exact wording change to the
>>>  errata report, and I will get the change made.
>>
>>  If Randy has strong preferences to the contrary and wants to
>>  take the lead to sort out wording, I'll defer to him.   But my
>>  preference right now, based on avoidance of pointless work,
>>  would just be to add a sentence to what is in the erratum
>>  already that says "the above wording is not quite correct and
>>  needs to be examined carefully before a revised version is
>>  inserted into a revised document" ... or something to that
>>  effect - exact wording doesn't make any difference.  In other
>>  words, I recommend flagging this rather than trying to develop
>>  supposedly-final text that would just need another pass if/when
>>  the document is revised.
>
> WFM.

OK... then:

RFC Editor: Please return this errata report to "Reported" state so I
can make the changes.  Thanks.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email