Subject: Re: [netconf] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8650 (6368)

From: Megan Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:22:47 -0500

Greetings,

FYI - errata report EID 6368 has been deleted as it seems to have been replaced by https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6369.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf

On Dec 24, 2020, at 2:45 PM, Kent Watsen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Let it be noted that this Errata (6368) is rejected.
> 
> Muly, please submit another Errata with the solution forwarded by Eric.
> 
> Kent // as co-Chair
> 
> 
>> On Dec 24, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Reshad Rahman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> +1. 
>> 
>> On 2020-12-24, 1:27 PM, "netconf on behalf of Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email-masked] on behalf of evoit=[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>>    Yes, that is what I suggest: that we change '22' to '39' in the URI.
>> 
>>    Eric
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 11:23 AM
>>> To: Eric Voit (evoit) <[email-masked]>
>>> Cc: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>; Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
>>> <[email-masked]>; Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) <[email-masked]>;
>>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Rob Wilton
>>> (rwilton) <[email-masked]>; Mahesh Jethanandani
>>> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>>> Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8650 (6368)
>>> 
>>> Hi Eric,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for you comment.  But note that the errata system is binary,
>>    either an
>>> errata is accepted or rejected.  To do what you say entails rejecting this
>>    errata
>>> and submitting a different one to say it,  Is this what you advocate?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kent
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 24, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Eric Voit (evoit) <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Rather than changing the subscription from 22 to 39, the URI should be
>>    made:
>>>> https://example.com/restconf/subscriptions/39
>>>> 
>>>> Reasons:
>>>> (1) There is no assumption that the subscription is the same one as
>>>> for the previous example.
>>>> (2) We want to keep the examples in lock-step with RFC8640.
>>>> 
>>>> Eric
>> 
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    netconf mailing list
>>    [email-masked]
>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>> 
>> 
>