trimming to 6lo and interested parties. Eric Vyncke \(evyncke\) <[email protected]> wrote: > To be honest, I am puzzled by this erratum:
I am even more.
> 1. Updating an existing RFC to fit no-yet-published draft does not
> respect the process 2. Errata can only be verified *IF* it represents
> the consensus of the WG/IETF at the time of publication, i.e., no
> after-thought can be added by the errata system.
First, I think we have a communication issue because Adnan says that the
errata forms didn't let him provide accurate corrected text.
But, I can't figure out what text he is correcting.
That diagram is not in RFC8929.
The text is in RFC8929, in section 3.1, paragraph "three"
What I see is that it inserts that diagram.
I don't think that it changes any behaviour, just clarifies what the packet
format is. As diagrams are not supposed to be normative on their own, the
errata ought to explain all the fields too.
> Therefore, I intend to mark this erratum as “Hold for document update”,
> i.e., for a potential rfc8929bis document if there is ever one.
I think that's probably the only answer anyway.
If Adnan thinks that this is likely (or already has!) caused an
inteoperability issue, then an Updates: document might be in order.
At least, an I-D to discuss.
In general, the entire 6lo(wpan) document sets needs a consolidated -bis
set. I find I have to wander forward and back through many documents to
remember everything. I also don't think anyone has time/energy to do that
work now.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
