Subject: [CCAMP] What next? RFC4873 segment-recording-desired flag

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:49:28 -0400

CCAMP, Nic,

You may recall that Nic Neate raised the issue that the 
segment-recording-desired flag identified in RFC4673 was never assigned 
a value.  We, the WG chairs, consequently conducted a poll to see what 
implementations were doing about this.  (See 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg10169.html).

The poll yielded a somewhat unexpected result: only one (informal) 
response which said that they collect SRROs whenever RROs are present.

The chairs, with agreement from the supervising AD, propose that the 
following actions be taken to address the missing of assignment of the 
segment-recording-desired flag identified in RFC4673:

1) That Nic (or one of the WG Chairs, if he declines to) file an errata 
on the RFC noting the issue (see http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php). 
This action should be taken independent of the next action.

2) That the authors of the RFC (which includes both one of the WG Chairs

and the supervising AD) respond to the Errata by stating:
    (a) that the flag is unassigned and therefore cannot be used, and
    (b) that the collection of SRROs be controlled based on the presence
        of an RRO in the message being processed.

Please let us know if you disagree with, or have any comments on the 
above approach to resolving this issue.

Thank you,
CCAMP WG Chairs

---

From: Nic Neate <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:02:34 +0100

Thank you chairs.  Here's the new errata:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1797

Nic

-----Original Message-----
From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 22 June 2009 16:49
To: [email-masked]; Nic Neate
Subject: What next? RFC4873 segment-recording-desired flag

CCAMP, Nic,

You may recall that Nic Neate raised the issue that the segment-recording-desired flag identified in RFC4673 was never assigned a value.  We, the WG chairs, consequently conducted a poll to see what implementations were doing about this.  (See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg10169.html).

The poll yielded a somewhat unexpected result: only one (informal) response which said that they collect SRROs whenever RROs are present.

The chairs, with agreement from the supervising AD, propose that the following actions be taken to address the missing of assignment of the segment-recording-desired flag identified in RFC4673:

1) That Nic (or one of the WG Chairs, if he declines to) file an errata on the RFC noting the issue (see http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php). 
This action should be taken independent of the next action.

Please let us know if you disagree with, or have any comments on the above approach to resolving this issue.

Thank you,
CCAMP WG Chairs