Hi Sebastien, I can't act on the erratum to update the "Corrected Text" to reflect what we agreed together.
I guess Martin or the RFC editor can make that update and then mark it as verified. Doing so would allow the corrected text to be seen as part of the rendered RFC version (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc7285.html). Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Sebastian Kiesel <[email protected]> > Envoyé : jeudi 7 avril 2022 11:35 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]> > Cc : Chris Smiley <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > Objet : Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7285 (6876) > > Hi Chris, Med, all, > > how do we move on here? > > my opinion is that the reported errata is not imperative to be > recorded, but if we decide to do so, I would consider this as an > editorial errata and I would really appreciate if we could add the > proposed "Note: ..." > sentence below the table (see quoted mail below), to make it > absolutely clear that no policy or specification change is > intended. > > who needs to sign off on that errata? > > (same for the other reported errata case) > > Thanks > Sebastian > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:21:19PM +0000, > [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Sebastien, all, > > > > Works for me. Thanks. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : Sebastian Kiesel <[email protected]> Envoyé : jeudi 10 > mars > > > 2022 13:17 À : Chris Smiley <[email protected]> Cc : > > > [email protected]; Zaheduzzaman Sarker > > > <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed > INNOV/NET > > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; RFC Errata > System > > > <[email protected]> Objet : Re: [Editorial Errata > Reported] > > > RFC7285 (6876) > > > > > > Hi Med, > > > > > > similar to the other case 6874, I think we should clarify that > no > > > policy change is intended, so: > > > > > > > > > Type: Editorial > > > Reported by: Mohamed BOUCADAIR <[email protected]> > > > > > > Section: 14.3 > > > > > > Original Text > > > ------------- > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > | Identifier | Intended Semantics | > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > | pid | See Section 7.1.1 | > > > | priv: | Private use | > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > > > > Table 4: ALTO Endpoint Property Types > > > > > > > > > Corrected Text > > > -------------- > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > | Identifier | Intended Semantics | > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > | pid | See Section 7.1.1 | > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > > > > Note: Identifiers prefixed with "priv:" are > > > reserved for Private Use (see Section > 10.8.2.) > > > > > > Table 4: ALTO Endpoint Property Types > > > > > > > > > would that work for you? > > > > > > thanks > > > Sebastian > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:23:35PM -0800, Chris Smiley wrote: > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter > marked as > > > editorial. > > > > Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following > > > > errata report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please > review > > > > and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions > at > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). > > > > > > > > You may review the report at: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6876 > > > > > > > > Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for > further > > > > information on how to verify errata reports. > > > > > > > > Further information on errata can be found at: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > RFC Editor/cs > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2022, at 10:21 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc- > editor@rfc- > > > editor.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for > RFC7285, > > > > > "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol". > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > You may review the report below and at: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6876 > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > Type: Editorial > > > > > Reported by: Mohamed BOUCADAIR > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Section: 14.3 > > > > > > > > > > Original Text > > > > > ------------- > > > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > > > | Identifier | Intended Semantics | > > > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > > > | pid | See Section 7.1.1 | > > > > > | priv: | Private use | > > > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > > > > > > > > Table 4: ALTO Endpoint Property Types > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Corrected Text > > > > > -------------- > > > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > > > | Identifier | Intended Semantics | > > > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > > > | pid | See Section 7.1.1 | > > > > > +------------+--------------------+ > > > > > > > > > > Table 4: ALTO Endpoint Property Types > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notes > > > > > ----- > > > > > priv: is not an identifier, but a prefix. > > > > > > > > > > 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 can > > > > > log in to change the status and edit the report, if > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > RFC7285 (draft-ietf-alto-protocol-27) > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > Title : Application-Layer Traffic > Optimization (ALTO) > > > Protocol > > > > > Publication Date : September 2014 > > > > > Author(s) : R. Alimi, Ed., R. Penno, Ed., Y. > Yang, Ed., S. > > > Kiesel, S. Previdi, W. Roome, S. Shalunov, R. Woundy > > > > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > > > > Source : Application-Layer Traffic > Optimization > > > > > Area : Transport > > > > > Stream : IETF > > > > > Verifying Party : IESG _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
