On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:25 PM Ron Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > > Folks, > > The errata is absolutely correct, but not critical. It doesn't change the > meaning of the draft.
Indeed -- from: https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-processing-rfc-errata-ietf-stream/ Trivial grammar corrections should be Hold for Document Update. Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update. Changes which are simply stylistic issues or simply make things read better should be Hold for Document Update. W > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -----Original Message----- > From: RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:10 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ron Bonica > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7126 (5798) > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7126, "Recommendations > on Filtering of IPv4 Packets Containing IPv4 Options". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata_eid5798&d=DwIBaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=nZ3JkhhosNgZGe_byRCiNKfoT8mc04jv4JPOfqiJ1Ic&s=O2rzpRzmsAUxg63Q1uwzC-KU1cKieM6w5vE45rTfscU&e= > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <[email protected]> > > Section: 1.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > The terms "fast path", "slow path", and associated relative terms > ("faster path" and "slower path") are loosely defined as in Section 2 > of [RFC6398]. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > > > Notes > ----- > These terms are not used in the document. The quoted text should be removed. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7126 (draft-ietf-opsec-ip-options-filtering-07) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Recommendations on Filtering of IPv4 Packets Containing > IPv4 Options > Publication Date : February 2014 > Author(s) : F. Gont, R. Atkinson, C. Pignataro > Category : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE > Source : Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network > Infrastructure > Area : Operations and Management > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
