Subject: [sidr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6485 (4340)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:36:28 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6485,
"The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6485&eid=4340

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Richard Hansen <[email-masked]>

Section: 1

Original Text
-------------
                                           the SIDR Architecture
   [RFC6480],

Corrected Text
--------------
                                           the RPKI Architecture
   [RFC6480],

Notes
-----
Neither "SIDR" nor "Secure Inter-Domain Routing" is mentioned in RFC6480.  RFC6480 is about the design of the RPKI, so "RPKI Architecture" seems like a more appropriate fit.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6485 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs-05)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Publication Date    : February 2012
Author(s)           : G. Huston
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Secure Inter-Domain Routing
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:24:12 +0200

I am trying very hard to understand why or how such a change affects interoperability of running
code that is based on this specification. So far I’ve been unable to think of an example
that makes sense. Could Richard kindly enlighten me as to why this is an important change? 

thanks,

   Geoff

> On 20 Apr 2015, at 7:36 pm, RFC Errata System <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Richard Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:23:49 -0400

On 2015-04-21 02:24, Geoff Huston wrote:
> that makes sense.

I also fail to see how this affects interoperability, which is why I
submitted it as an editorial errata instead of a technical errata.  This
change is about as significant as
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3162>, except maybe
less so because people sometimes cite section numbers while nobody will
ever cite this particular line.

If the change was technical and substantial, I would have submitted a
bis or update draft.

> Could Richard kindly enlighten me as to why this is an important change?

Someone unfamiliar with the SIDR working group might be confused by
mention of SIDR.  (Just like someone stumbling across a typo might be
distracted a bit.)

This is just a readability fix, nothing more.  I think the more
important question is:  Is the suggested change correct?

-Richard

> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:49:19 -0400

> important question is:  Is the suggested change correct?

The document to which the words refers to is called:
"An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing"
and the short title in the header of the draft is:
"RPKI Architecture"
but I don’t think folks are going to be confused because they’re going to follow the [RFC6480] to the normative references and then do a lookup or just do a straight lookup on RFC 6480 so I’d probably just leave it.

spt

---

From: Richard Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:50:45 -0400

On 2015-04-21 18:49, Sean Turner wrote:
> so I'd probably just leave it.

Are you saying that the errata process is too heavyweight for a minor
editorial typo like this?  If so, is there a more appropriate way to
report an editorial typo so that it will be fixed in a bis if/when one
is ever produced?

Thanks,
Richard