Re: Errata against ROHC RFCs

On Jan 31, 2011, at 13:21, Lars Eggert wrote:

> Please discuss these errata on this list.

Here is my assessment.
Thanks for bringing these up!

Gruesse, Carsten


* RFC 3816:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=737
-- many typos, some opportunity for editorial improvement
-- very little risk for misinterpretation, except maybe for 2f
-> Hold for Update
(The large number of errata leaves the document in a somwhat sorry
state.  It might be worthwhile to look at the implementation status of
RFC 3816 to assess the need for a re-spin.)

* RFC 5795:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2107
-- opportunity for minor editorial improvement
-- no risk
-> Hold for Update

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2108
-- errata submission simply misreads text (reads verb as noun)
-- could be improved editorially anyway (but not in the way proposed)
-- no risk
-> Reject, but make note to improve this text in next update

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2109
-- proposed change is somewhat pedantic;
-- it actually might reduce readability for some readers
-- no risk
-> Reject

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2110
"RFC Errata Report"
-- punctuation fix (typo)
-- no risk
-> Hold for Update

* RFC 5857

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2274
-- editorial fix required: the wording on top of page 4 can be misread
   (the section reference parenthesis is about the new Notify Message
   Type value, not about the channel parameters carried by this
   message type).
-- also: this (and another) reference that should point to section 5
   (IANA considerations) incorrectly say "Section 4" (they should not
   say 3.1.2 as the errata states either).
-- annoying, but very little risk of misunderstanding
-> Hold for Update

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2275
-- typo
-- no risk
-> Hold for Update

* RFC 5858

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2276
-- typos
-- no risk
-> Hold for Update

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2277
-- idea for a very desirable editorial improvement
-- can probably be improved on further
-- even without that improvement, minimal risk of misinterpretation
-> Hold for Update