--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 16:20 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's a cut and paste error:
>
> 5047 DA: Datamover Architecture for the Internet Small
> Computer System Interface (iSCSI). M. Chadalapaka, J.
> Hufferd, J. Satran, H. Shah. October 2007. (Format: TXT,
> HTML) (Updated by RFC7146) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (DOI:
> 10.17487/RFC5047
>
> 5074 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV). S. Weiler. November
> 2007. (Format: TXT, HTML) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (DOI:
> 10.17487/RFC5074)
>
> The title of 5047 was used instead of the correct title of
> 5074.
Pete,
Thanks. I obviously didn't search hard enough, partially
because I was looking for 5047, which is what the RFC Editor
announcement said. I would have expected information in the
datatracker too and, behold, when I look under 5074, as Brian's
discovery suggested, there it is.
Brian, the cut and paste error, if that is what it was involved
the whole business because the subject line on the announcement,
and the text in the body of the announcement message was for
5047 and its title.
The good news is that I just checked the RFC index and the
status is correct for both documents. However, while the
datatracker page for 5074 says "Status changed by
status-change-dlv-to-historic", when I go to look at that page
and the IESG evaluation record and History, I see hints of
"topics under discussion" and a DISCUSS position that was
dropped (and changed to a "yes") apparently without any comment.
When I follow that comment through to the datatracker page for
draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv, I find that it is in the RFC
Editor queue and marked "AUTH48-DONE", which makes the reason
the DISCUSS concerns were dropped clear, but that is certainly
not obvious from the tracker records for the status change.
I assume it is due to all of the trauma around xml2rfc v3, but,
after reviewing the datatracker information, I'm a bit surprised
that it took the RFC Editor between early November and today to
post their announcement (if that announcement was needed at
all). Or perhaps the wrong announcement was sent out as well as
the wrong RFC number and title and what really should have gone
out was the RFC publication announcement for
draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv .
Clearly a fairly minor human error in the announcement, which I
assume will be corrected. None of it is really a problem and I
don't intend to complain. However, if one of our goals with
these announcements and the datatracker information is to leave
clear tracks for future historians, we maybe could be doing a
bit better and requiring a bit less skill and effort to connect
all the dots.
thanks,
john
