Hi, I’m attempting to work through my errata backlog.
For errata 7263, it looks like this was going to be discussed. Did this happen, and if so, what was the outcome please? My currently proposal is to edit the errata to change the “SHOULD BE” to “MUST be” and then mark the errata as HFDU. Does anyone have any opinions on this resolution? Regards, Rob From: Buschart, Rufus <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:11 AM To: Esko Dijk <[email protected]>; Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>; Max Pritikin (pritikin) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) Hi! I do have a PTO today and will not be able to dial in ;-) Best regards Rufus ________________________________ From: Esko Dijk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:55:46 AM To: Buschart, Rufus (IT IPS SIP) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) Thanks Rufus, we even should have a call today at 17:00 CET - call-in details are here (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fanima%2FF2Ojytj9qoxlE4XSjtMwXMf8oFs%2F&data=05%7C01%7Crufus.buschart%40siemens.com%7C7833dd970f1b4580cfd908dadcdf735a%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638065150467953304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y1S2VmOjEyl6pW13kGRnzjCJTBDS%2BAZx22m9TgliFi8%3D&reserved=0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/F2Ojytj9qoxlE4XSjtMwXMf8oFs/>). Maybe we could also briefly discuss the difference between "X does Y" versus "X MUST do Y" in an RFC, since no-one dared to comment on that yet ;-) Regards Esko -----Original Message----- From: Buschart, Rufus <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 22:23 To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Esko Dijk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) Hello all! Thank you for working so intensively on my errata. I was invited by one of Siemens's representatives in the ANIMA WG to join your call next week. I hope I'll be able to make it and would be very happy to work with you on my proposed errata. And btw: I would love to have MUSTs in both paragraphs but didn't dare to propose this 😉 /Rufus > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Monday, 12 December 2022 21:52 > To: Esko Dijk > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: RFC Errata System > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Buschart, Rufus (IT > IPS SIP) > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8995 (7263) > > > Esko Dijk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > The worry I have here is that by the time we get to the document update > > people may not be around anymore to remember why the 'SHOULD' > ought to > > be a 'MUST' and then the wrong change will be made. > > okay. > > Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > If the errata is "Hold for Doc Update" then the RFC editor won't > > automatically apply the diff. I'm pretty sure that is only ever done > > for verified errata. > > so, let's mark it this way for now. > > > There are also notes that can go along with the errata to give further > > information (e.g., what the proposed long-term resolution is) if that > > is helpful. > > If have consensus for the next text, then I think the RFC-editor site can do > the patch process, though, when we mark it as verified. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> . > o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > >
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
