Hi all,
Thanks for your replies, and apologies for my confusion!
Note that a new errata report has been submitted [1] and the erroneous report
(EID 7645) has been deleted.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7649
> On Sep 19, 2023, at 7:41 AM, Joe Clarke
The erratum was supposed to be for RFC 5340, which came from the OSPF WG. This
is why I suggested it might be easier to simply reject the erratum as reported
and have the submitter open a new one on the correct RFC so everything is
directed to the right places and people.
Joe
From: Sandy
Hi Jürgen,
From the datatracker:
Was draft-ietf-opsawg-snmp-engineid-discovery (opsawg WG)
This document is the product of the Operations and Management Area Working
Group.
Is OPSAWG incorrect, or are you suggesting that the right place to discuss this
RFC now is OSPF?
Thanks,
RFC
You have to make sure that the right people and WG receive the
erratum, RFC 5340 belongs to the OSPF WG.
/js
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 04:32:02PM -0700, Chris Smiley wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> This errata reports a problem with Section A.3.3/RFC 5343. It has been
> corrected to Section
Greetings,
This errata reports a problem with Section A.3.3/RFC 5343. It has been
corrected to Section A.3.3/RFC 5340
Please let us know any concerns.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/cs
> On Sep 17, 2023, at 10:49 PM, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been
Typos with 5333 and 5343
I would let the ADs reject this and you submit a new erratum.
Joe
From: Owen DeLong
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:48
To: Jürgen Schönwälder
Cc: RFC Errata System ,
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de ,
war...@kumari.net , Rob Wilton (rwilton)
,
Hi -
On 2023-09-18 12:42 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
This erratum should be rejected since the text does not appear in RFC
5343. It seems the text is found in 5340, 'OSPF for IPv6', and this is
a typo when the erratum was entered.
I concur. There may be a problem, but it's not in RFC 5343.
Juergen is right. 5340 is the correct rfc and 5333 is a typo. Apologies.
Can the errata be reassigned or should I resubmit? What is the best process
here?
Owen
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 00:42, Jürgen Schönwälder
> wrote:
>
> This erratum should be rejected since the text does not appear in
This erratum should be rejected since the text does not appear in RFC
5343. It seems the text is found in 5340, 'OSPF for IPv6', and this is
a typo when the erratum was entered.
/js
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 10:49:29PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5343,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7645
--
10 matches
Mail list logo
