Subject: [rohc] Errata against ROHC RFCs

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:21:53 +0200

Hi,

several errata have been submitted against ROHC RFCs: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=2&area_acronym=tsv&wg_acronym=rohc&presentation=table

The TSV ADs would like to enlist the help of the RFC authors and the broader ROHC community in order to determine how to process these, i.e., which should be "verified", "held" or "rejected".

Please discuss these errata on this list.

Lars

PS: IESG guidelines on errata handling:

   In order to help you determine the correct handling for the errata
   in step (4), the IESG has come up with a few guidelines:

 1. Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment
    problems or significant confusion should be Approved.

 2. Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an
    implementation or deployment problem should be Hold for Document
    Update.

 3. Errata on obsolete RFCs should be treated the same as errata on
    RFCs that are not obsolete where there is strong evidence that
    some people are still making use of the related technology.

 4. Trivial grammar corrections should be Hold for Document Update.

 5. Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to
    implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update.

 6. Changes which are simply stylistic issues or simply make things
    read better should be Hold for Document Update.

 7. Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
    might be different from the intended consensus when the document
    was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or
    Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment.
    Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus,
    or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear
    situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update.

 8. Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an
    IANA registration procedure, to something that might be different
    from the intended consensus when the document was approved should
    be Rejected.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:02:48 +0100

> Please discuss these errata on this list.

Here is my assessment.
Thanks for bringing these up!

Gruesse, Carsten

* RFC 3816:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=737
-- many typos, some opportunity for editorial improvement
-- very little risk for misinterpretation, except maybe for 2f
-> Hold for Update
(The large number of errata leaves the document in a somwhat sorry
state.  It might be worthwhile to look at the implementation status of
RFC 3816 to assess the need for a re-spin.)

* RFC 5795:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2107
-- opportunity for minor editorial improvement
-- no risk
-> Hold for Update

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2108
-- errata submission simply misreads text (reads verb as noun)
-- could be improved editorially anyway (but not in the way proposed)
-- no risk
-> Reject, but make note to improve this text in next update

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2109
-- proposed change is somewhat pedantic;
-- it actually might reduce readability for some readers
-- no risk
-> Reject

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2110
"RFC Errata Report"
-- punctuation fix (typo)
-- no risk
-> Hold for Update

* RFC 5857

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2274
-- editorial fix required: the wording on top of page 4 can be misread
   (the section reference parenthesis is about the new Notify Message
   Type value, not about the channel parameters carried by this
   message type).
-- also: this (and another) reference that should point to section 5
   (IANA considerations) incorrectly say "Section 4" (they should not
   say 3.1.2 as the errata states either).
-- annoying, but very little risk of misunderstanding
-> Hold for Update

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2275
-- typo
-- no risk
-> Hold for Update

* RFC 5858

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2276
-- typos
-- no risk
-> Hold for Update

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2277
-- idea for a very desirable editorial improvement
-- can probably be improved on further
-- even without that improvement, minimal risk of misinterpretation
-> Hold for Update

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:02:28 +0200

Thanks, Carsten. I'll wait a few days to give others a chance to chime in, but your suggestions seem reasonable to me.