Subject: Re: [manet] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5497 (1723)

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:40:08 -0000

As discussed in my reply to erratum 1724, there is an
error, but the correction here is incorrect. The
correction should be

Original Text
-------------
a) Section 7.1, last paragraph

   An INTERVAL_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 5.

b) Section 7.2, last paragraph

   A VALIDITY_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 5.

Corrected Text
--------------
a)

   An INTERVAL_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 6.

b)

   A VALIDITY_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 6. 

This is because part of the specification to be covered by the
reference is in Section 6 before Section 6.1.

Christopher Dearlove (co-author of RFC 5497)

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: RFC Errata System [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 16 March 2009 10:11
To: [email-masked]; Dearlove, Christopher (UK);
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5497 (1723)

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5497,
"Representing Multi-Value Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5497&eid=1723

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <[email-masked]>

Section: 7.1 and 7.2

Original Text
-------------
a) Section 7.1, last paragraph

   An INTERVAL_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 5.

b) Section 7.2, last paragraph

   A VALIDITY_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 5.

Corrected Text
--------------
a)

   An INTERVAL_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 6.1.

b)

   A VALIDITY_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 6.1.

Notes
-----
Rationale:
  Section 5 only contains the low-level details;
  Section 6, and in particular Section 6.1, contains the precise
  specification of the Time TLV format used in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5497 (draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-08)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Representing Multi-Value Time in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks (MANETs)
Publication Date    : March 2009
Author(s)           : T. Clausen, C. Dearlove
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:04:36 -0000

I do not agree with the suggestion below. The correction
should simply be to Section 6, as I nored. Section 6
includes its subsections.

The previously modified erratum as I noted is what (if
anything) should be published.

As for erratum notes, I would simply replace them by
"Incorrect reference". No more.

Christopher Dearlove

-----Original Message-----
From: Alfred HÎnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 16 March 2009 11:32
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5497 (1723 + 1724)

               *** WARNING ***

Christopher,
thanks for your nearly instantaneous responses.

I mostly agree with your annotations for Errata ID #1723 and #1724.

I already had considered to add more information, but as frequently
the desire is to keep the footprint of changes as small as possible,
I had moved the details into the Notes, not into the Modified Text.

The common RFC section numbering style has a few drawbacks that
sometimes become apparent.  If the body of Section 6 (excluding
6.1 and 6.2) would have been numbered 6.0, a ref. to "Section 6"
would unambiguously indicate the part of text that matters;
as things currently are, it is not precisely clear whether a ref.
to "Section 6" means the whole section (including 6.1 and 6.2) or
only the initial part.

The Message TLVs per Sections 7.1 and 7.2 are single-value Time TLVs,
and Section 6.2 explicitely excludes applicability to Message TLVs;
thus, simply referring to "Section 6" would be potentially confusing;
I now suggest to more precisely refer there (eid=1723) to:
   "Sections 6 and 6.1."
as already mentioned in the original Notes for eid-1723
(which then can be dropped).

In contrast, the TLVs in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 indeed allow to use
6.1, as I found on once more re-reading the text after your note;
however, since Section 6.2 does not exclude m=1, I originally had
read the text in 8.1 and 8.2 as using 6.2 exclusively.
My mistake, perhaps -- but also a bit of surprising overlap in the
specification.
Now taking that overlap as given, it might be best to more precisely
refer in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 (eid=1724) to:
   "Sections 6 through 6.2."
The Notes for eid=1724 can be dropped on Errata approval as well.

Kind regards,
  Alfred HÎnes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

---

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:11:04 -0700 (PDT)

Section: 7.1 and 7.2

Original Text
-------------

Corrected Text
--------------
a)

b)

Notes
-----
Rationale:

Instructions:
-------------

Title               : Representing Multi-Value Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:32:22 +0100 (MEZ)

Christopher,

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

--