On 08/12/2011 18:51, Russ Housley wrote:
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors and
IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are
As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226eid=2715
In it Julian suggests (wdiff shows the proposed text changes):
5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions
[-should-] {+SHALL+} be provided to identify any initial
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Narten
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:02 AM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: IETF; i...@iesg.org
Subject: Re: Errata against RFC 5226 rejected
I don't see the need for this. should seems
I agree, and I think the original text is a better description of the
requirement.
Cheers,
-Benson
On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226eid=2715
In it Julian suggests (wdiff shows the
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors
and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are no unreserved
values. For registries
On 12/8/11 12:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
That said, the best I can see for this report is held for document
update. It's one of those things that's not worth spending time on,
and, as Thomas says, the should language makes it fine as it is.
+1. There's work happening in the background on
In other words, I don't see a problem with the existing text that
warrants bothering with an errata.
If IANA isn't able to figure out what they need to do under the
current wording, we have problems that no amount of word twiddling can
fix.
R's,
John
PS: The last time I checked, it wasn't a
On Dec 8, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC
authors and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many
--On Thursday, December 08, 2011 14:02 -0500 Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226eid=2715
...
I don't see the need for this. should seems good enough for
me. Also, the wording any ranges that are
On 08/12/2011 19:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors
and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are no
In a small registry like this, it is useful to have something in the
box in the table that makes it less likely that the value will be squatted
on.
In the above example it is clearer in the 0..7 case that there are only
two free values and I will need a real good use case.
In the 0..5
11 matches
Mail list logo
