Re: Errata against ROHC RFCs

+1 for Carsten's assessment.

Cheers,

/Calle

On 02/02/2011 06:16 AM, rstangarone-ietf wrote:
> I agree with Carsten's assessment.
> 
> Bob
> 
> On 02/01/2011 12:02 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Thanks, Carsten. I'll wait a few days to give others a chance to chime in, but your suggestions seem reasonable to me.
>>
>> On 2011-1-31, at 21:02, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rohc mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc