Subject: [Idr] Pending errata for RFC 4271

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 05:52:36 -0700

While reviewing the latest erratum I noticed that we actually have four of them sitting in "reported" state:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4271&rec_status=2&presentation=records

In reviewing these I think they all seem fine, although erratum 150 should be marked as editorial, not technical.

The oldest of these is more than five years old!  I believe the procedure to get these marked "verified" is for the chairs to ask the IESG to do it.  Unless there is an objection by the Tuesday June 28, I'll plan to do that.

Thanks,

--John

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:24:23 -0700

> The oldest of these is more than five years old!  I believe the procedure to get these marked "verified" is for the chairs to ask the IESG to do it.  Unless there is an objection by the Tuesday Jun…

I concur.

Thanks John!

Tony

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:32:06 +0200

Erratum 1332 would add 'Unsupported Capability' to the Open Error subcodes but
this functionality and error code does not appear anywhere in RFC 4271 (or RFC
1771) so I think that this Erratum should be rejected.

As IANA records, this error subcode is defined in RFC5492/RFC3392

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scudder" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 2:52 PM
Subject: [Idr] Pending errata for RFC 4271

> While reviewing the latest erratum I noticed that we actually have four of
them sitting in "reported" state:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4271&rec_status=2&presentation=r
ecords
> The oldest of these is more than five years old!  I believe the procedure to
get these marked "verified" is for the chairs to ask the IESG to do it.  Unless
there is an objection by the Tuesday June 28, I'll plan to do that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:16:07 -0700

True enough.  

Any dissenters?

--John

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:27:58 -0700

> As IANA records, this error subcode is defined in RFC5492/RFC3392

True, but it would leave the list of subcodes in 4271 incomplete.  

You may (correctly) argue that the only definitive list should be maintained by IANA, and thus the ultimately correct approach would be to withdraw the lists of errors from section 4.5 and reference the IANA registry, and leave the initial list of errors in the IANA considerations section.  This seems like a much larger change.  I believe that the errata is a fine tradeoff in ensuring that others are aware of the additional code point.

Tony

---

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:32:34 -0700

> You may (correctly) argue that the only definitive list should be maintained by IANA, and thus the ultimately correct approach would be to withdraw the lists of errors from section 4.5 and referenc…

I essentially agree with both.  The IANA registry is indisputably the authority.  OTOH the erratum doesn't hurt and might help.  I am, therefore, not terribly bothered either way (and have now expended more than my quota of typing messages about this very nitty nit).  Consensus as of next Tuesday takes it, with "accept the erratum" being the default in case of no clear consensus.  (Right now we're in the "accept it" column.)

--John

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:27:43 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scudder" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:32 PM
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Tony Li wrote:
> You may (correctly) argue that the only definitive list should be maintained
by IANA, and thus the ultimately correct approach would be to withdraw the lists
of errors from section 4.5 and reference the IANA registry, and leave the
initial list of errors in the IANA considerations section.  This seems like a
much larger change.  I believe that the errata is a fine tradeoff in ensuring
that others are aware of the additional code point.

I essentially agree with both.  The IANA registry is indisputably the authority.
OTOH the erratum doesn't hurt and might help.  I am, therefore, not terribly
bothered either way (and have now expended more than my quota of typing messages
about this very nitty nit).  Consensus as of next Tuesday takes it, with "accept
the erratum" being the default in case of no clear consensus.  (Right now we're
in the "accept it" column.)

John

At the risk of all the problems that come with 'e-mail quota exceeded' ....

You need to make it clear to IANA that this functional change to an IANA
Considerations MUST NOT cause them to change anything because what they have now
is correct, and what they would have had had this erratum been included as it
stands in RFC4271 would have been incorrect:-)  (I favour leaving sleepng dogs
lie)

Tom Petch

--John=

---

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:34:55 -0700

Folks,

I requested Stewart to make the following updates:

150: Verified, but Editorial
2838: Verified
1332: Rejected (see mail thread for discussion)
1633: Verified

FYI.

--John