On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:19 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
> At the request of Warren, making this observation in public. > Thank you, Jeff! I requested this so that there is some traceability / transparency. I think that this is especially important when changing the state of a previous Errata call. I went to go edit the Errata and change it, but was thwarted with: " Access Denied Report 4550 for RFC4384 has already been classified as Rejected. Please contact the RFC Editor if you want to edit this report. " So, I'll be contacting the RFC Editor to, but in the mean time: Does anyone disagree with marking this Errata as Verified? Link: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4550 Link to Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml#trans-two-octet-as I sort of get where Joel was coming from, but to me Verified seems much more correct than Rejected. Also, seeing 0x0008 in a 1 octet field is disconcerting and makes me want to hide under my blankie and hope it goes away… W > -- Jeff > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> > *Subject: **RFC 4384 rejected errata, wrong call* > *Date: *January 30, 2023 at 11:03:39 AM EST > *To: *grow-...@ietf.org > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4384 > > I think Joel made the wrong call when he rejected the point about 0x0008 > in the diagrams should be 0x08. I went here to report the exact same > errata. :-) > > -- Jeff > > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
