On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 11:22 AM John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi John, all, > > > > If we want the fix to the appendix to be immediately visible to the > readers (in the rendered version), wouldn’t be more appropriate to mark > this erratum as “verified” rather than “held for doc update”? > > I suppose. In 2018 when this RFC was published, the Trust still said > "Simplified" so what's in the text matches what the author intended at the > time. Not a big deal either way for me, since as I noted, the actual > license it points to has always been correct. Only the name was wrong. > > We intended to include the text provided. If people follow the guidelines in Appendix A now, and use the word "Simplified", it is going to need to be fixed later. Better to avoid that if possible. R's, > John > Andy > > > De : Andy Bierman <[email protected]> > > Envoyé : jeudi 31 mars 2022 19:11 > > À : John R. Levine <[email protected]> > > Cc : tom petch <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET < > [email protected]>; Kent Watsen <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > > Objet : Re: [netmod] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8407 (6899) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:56 AM John R. Levine <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > >> There are not thousands of RFCs that include a "Module Review > Checklist" :-), which is the purpose of this erratum. Thanks. > >> > >> <tp> > >> > >> I agree. There may be lots of RFC in error because RFC8407 gets it > wrong but if the update to the lots of RFC was wanted then it should have > been investigated last Autumn when the announcement of the change to the > TLP was made, an announcement that passed me by despite being on all the > right mailing lists. > > > > The fix to the TLP was my idea in the first place and it's not that big > of > > a deal. If you follow the link and read that part of the TLP, the actual > > license has never changed. We just give it the correct name now. > > > > I agree the checklist in Appendix A should be updated. > > > > The corrected RFC (any RFC where Errata Exists) should be available > online. > > Not erasing the published RFC, but with a link to rfcNNNN-current (where > all accepted Errata is applied). > > > > > > Regards, > > John Levine, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, Primary > Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", > > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. > https://jl.ly > > > > > > Andy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > 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. > > > > > > Regards, > John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
