Subject: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7697 (4586)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:17:29 -0800 (PST)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7697,
"MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Identifiers Management Information Base (MIB)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7697&eid=4586

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Venkatesan Mahalingam <[email-masked]>

Section: 9.1

Original Text
-------------
9.1.  IANA Considerations for MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB

   IANA has to assign the OID { mplsStdMIB 21 } to the
   MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB module specified in this document.

Corrected Text
--------------
9.1.  IANA Considerations for MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB

   IANA has assigned the OID { mplsStdMIB 21 } to the
   MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB module specified in this document.

Notes
-----

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7697 (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Identifiers Management Information Base (MIB)
Publication Date    : January 2016
Author(s)           : P. Pan, S. Aldrin, M. Venkatesan, K. Sampath, T. Nadeau, S. Boutros
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:26:33 +0800

Deborah,

The nature of this is such that I don't we need to much process to
approve it. As the wg chair I support this. If you are OK with it
just go ahead and approve.

/Loa

---

From: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:06:59 +0000

Loa

Surely this is of marginal value and should not be other than fixed in next update. After all it will be obvious to the reader what the value is.

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

> On 9 Jan 2016, at 07:27, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Deborah,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:33:04 +0800

Stewart,

Yes - exactly! However Errata is there to capture both technical and
editorial errors.

This is an editorial errata, if we neglect it, i.e. not add a note in
the errata system, that it is know and will be taken care of if we ever
do an update. The effect would be that we will see the same errata
reported over again; and a number mails that authors/chairs/ADs have to
respond to. Today this is piece of a cake, we are all up to speed, but
in the future what happen will fade into the background (new chairs/ADs)
and someone will have to dig into this to understand it.

Far better to  respond to the errata "Approved - hold for potential
update."

/Loa