Subject: [mile] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6545 (3302)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6545,
"Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6545&eid=3302

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: S Terry Brugger <[email-masked]>

Section: 7.2.1

Original Text
-------------
   SP-1 is represented by CERT-FOR-OUR-DOMAIN and 192.0.2.67.  SP-2 is
   identified by 192, 0.2.98.  In this example, SP-2 is the service
   provider for systems on the 192.0.2.32/27 subnet.  The contact for
   the host 192.0.2.35 is known at the start of the request as
   [email-masked]'.

Corrected Text
--------------
   SP-1 is represented by CERT-FOR-OUR-DOMAIN and 192.0.2.67.  SP-2 is
   identified by 192.0.2.98.  In this example, SP-2 is the service
   provider for systems on the 192.0.2.32/27 subnet.  The contact for
   the host 192.0.2.35 is known at the start of the request as
   [email-masked]'.

Notes
-----
This could also be considered an Editorial erratum; however, since it is a technically invalid address, I selected Technical.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata 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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6545 (draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
Publication Date    : April 2012
Author(s)           : K. Moriarty
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:44:05 -0700

The question here is whether implementers will do something wrong based 
on the incorrect address.  The right address is in the example so I 
think not.  I'm going to change this to editorial and mark it hold for 
document update.

spt

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:22:59 -0400

Thank you, Sean.  I agree, the findings are editorial and should be noted in case there is a future update to the document.

Terry - thank you for finding the nits!

Best regards,
Kathleen
________________________________________
From: Sean Turner [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:44 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6545 (3302)

spt