Hi, This sort of erratum in a MIB module bothers me. The trouble is that it changes the compilable content of the module, if not the key parts.
So, the order of process is: - Is the erratum correct? - Is a fix *required* (i.e., is the module unusable without it?) - Can the erratum be held for a revision of the module? - How urgent is such a revision? - Do we have candidates to revise the document? Cheers, Adrian (speaking as an AD who does MIB modules a bit, but not the AD for OSPF) > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 24 July 2012 15:51 > To: Joan Cucchiara > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4750 (3292) > > Hi Joan, > If you have a minute could you comment as to: > 1. Is the subject Errata correct? > 2. If so, does it have any consequence other than editorial content? It doesn't > appear to me that any MIB tools have complained about it. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:21 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: > > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4750, > > "OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4750&eid=3292 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Editorial > > Reported by: Michael Kirkham <[email protected]> > > > > Section: 5 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > ospfTrapCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE > > STATUS obsolete > > DESCRIPTION > > "The compliance statement." > > MODULE -- this module > > MANDATORY-GROUPS { ospfTrapControlGroup } > > > > GROUP ospfTrapControlGroup > > DESCRIPTION > > "This group is optional but recommended for all > > OSPF systems." > > ::= { ospfTrapCompliances 1 } > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > ospfTrapCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE > > STATUS obsolete > > DESCRIPTION > > "The compliance statement." > > MODULE -- this module > > GROUP ospfTrapControlGroup > > DESCRIPTION > > "This group is optional but recommended for all > > OSPF systems." > > ::= { ospfTrapCompliances 1 } > > > > Notes > > ----- > > ospfTrapControlGroup is listed both in the MANDATORY-GROUPS clause and in > a GROUP clause. Per RFC 2580, Conformance Statements for SMIv2 (brackets > added to indicate pertinent rule): > > > > "5.4.2. Mapping of the GROUP clause > > > > The GROUP clause, which need not be present, is repeatedly used to > > name each object and notification group which is conditionally > > mandatory for compliance to the MIB module. The GROUP clause can > > also be used to name unconditionally optional groups. [A group named > > in a GROUP clause must be absent from the correspondent MANDATORY- > > GROUPS clause.]" > > > > It is listed in both clauses in RFC 1850 as well (which RFC 4750 obsoletes). It is > STATUS current in RFC 1850 and STATUS obsolete in 4750; however, obsolete or > not, it is not legal according to SMI rules. > > > > Instructions: > > ------------- > > This errata 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 (IESG) > > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC4750 (draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-11) > > -------------------------------------- > > Title : OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base > > Publication Date : December 2006 > > Author(s) : D. Joyal, Ed., P. Galecki, Ed., S. Giacalone, Ed., R. Coltun, F. > Baker > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP > > Area : Routing > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
