From: Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: 22 September 2023 08:58 On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 08:41:58AM +0000, tom petch wrote: > I just commented on a Last Call that the I-D is nonsense! You mean to say you noticed a mistake in 1 of the 7 updates the I-D proposes to the IANA managed BMP group registries? > The I-D updates the IANA Considerations of an RFC. Trouble is, part > of the IANA Considerations were fundamentally changed by an Erratum > rendering part of the I-D a nonsense. The I-D is > draft-ietf-grow-bmp-registries-change-03 the RFC is 7854 section 10.8, > the erratum is 7194. > > Obviously this has been missed by the authors, missed at adoption, > missed at WGLC, missed at AD Review. For context: the Errata was not missed at WG adoption because the Errata didn't exist yet back then. The Errata also didn't exist yet when WGLC happened. AD Review has yet to take place. <tp> Well semantics to some degree. In some WG, WGLC goes on for years and there may never be a formal declaration of the end thereof. WGLC for this I-D was scheduled to end in June 2019 and although Chris Morrow said he would send it forward to the IESG, that appears not to have happened until August 2023. Meanwhile the erratum is dated October 2022 so yes, I was wrong to say that the Erratum was missed at WG adoption or earlier (I misread the date of the report of the Erratum). I might rather have said that there was a lot of support for this I-D but the mismatch, of 8 bit protoocol and 16 bit IANA Considerations was not noticed by the enthusiastic supporters:-( Perhaps Errata are like IPR claims; they need to be checked late in the process. Tom Petch Thankfully you caught this oversight in IETF Last Call. > IANA acted on the erratum and the IANA web site correctly reflects it. Great, the errata process too works! > I am thinking that the Shepherd Writeup chould include a question as > to whether, when an RFC is being updated, any Errata to the RFC have > been taken into consideration. Yes, excellent suggestion to update the template to mention Errata. > I note that the RFC Editor provides a version of the RFC with Errata > included and highlighted so the check can be carried out fairly > easily. Yes. Kind regards, Job
