Thank you, Donald, it seems logical indeed. I will mark it as “hold for doc 
update”

Regards,

-éric

From: Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, 24 May 2024 at 04:19
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, jab...@strandkip.nl 
<jab...@strandkip.nl>, liyiz...@huawei.com <liyiz...@huawei.com>, 
ek.i...@gmail.com <ek.i...@gmail.com>, Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) 
<juzun...@cisco.com>, wassim.had...@ericsson.com <wassim.had...@ericsson.com>, 
nmal...@protokols.ru <nmal...@protokols.ru>, int-area@ietf.org 
<int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9542 (7952)
Well, it depends whether or not you consider "additional octets" to cover the 
case of one and a half additional octets. I don't see that that wording is 
really wrong but I suppose saying "additional bits" is slightly better. I 
suggest the erratum is correct but can simply be held for document update.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com<mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>


On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 9:42 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 
<evyn...@cisco.com<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Donald and Joe,

I will let you decide whether the erratum is correct.

-éric

From: RFC Errata System 
<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>>
Date: Thursday, 23 May 2024 at 11:33
To: d3e...@gmail.com<mailto:d3e...@gmail.com> 
<d3e...@gmail.com<mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>>, 
jab...@strandkip.nl<mailto:jab...@strandkip.nl> 
<jab...@strandkip.nl<mailto:jab...@strandkip.nl>>, 
liyiz...@huawei.com<mailto:liyiz...@huawei.com> 
<liyiz...@huawei.com<mailto:liyiz...@huawei.com>>, 
ek.i...@gmail.com<mailto:ek.i...@gmail.com> 
<ek.i...@gmail.com<mailto:ek.i...@gmail.com>>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 
<evyn...@cisco.com<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>>, Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) 
<juzun...@cisco.com<mailto:juzun...@cisco.com>>, 
wassim.had...@ericsson.com<mailto:wassim.had...@ericsson.com> 
<wassim.had...@ericsson.com<mailto:wassim.had...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: nmal...@protokols.ru<mailto:nmal...@protokols.ru> 
<nmal...@protokols.ru<mailto:nmal...@protokols.ru>>, 
int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org> 
<int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>>, 
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> 
<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>>
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9542 (7952)
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9542,
"IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 
Parameters".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7952

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmal...@protokols.ru<mailto:nmal...@protokols.ru>>

Section: 2.1

Original Text
-------------
   For global addresses, X = 0 and a MAC address begins with 3 octets or
   a larger initial prefix indicating the assignee of the block of MAC
   addresses.  This prefix is followed by a sequence of additional
   octets so as to add up to the total MAC address length.  For example,
   the IEEE assigns MAC Address Block Small (MA-S), where the first four
   and a half octets (36 bits) are assigned, giving the holder of the
   MA-S one and a half octets (12 bits) they can control in constructing
   48-bit MAC addresses; other prefix lengths are also available
   [IEEEtutorials].

Corrected Text
--------------
   For global addresses, X = 0 and a MAC address begins with 3 octets or
   a larger initial prefix indicating the assignee of the block of MAC
   addresses.  This prefix is followed by a sequence of additional
   bits so as to add up to the total MAC address length.  For example,
   the IEEE assigns MAC Address Block Small (MA-S), where the first four
   and a half octets (36 bits) are assigned, giving the holder of the
   MA-S one and a half octets (12 bits) they can control in constructing
   48-bit MAC addresses; other prefix lengths are also available
   [IEEEtutorials].

Notes
-----
It is incorrect to talk about additional octets here, since the prefix size may 
not be an integer number of octets. It is appropriate to speak about additional 
bits.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC9542 (draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation 
Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters
Publication Date    : April 2024
Author(s)           : D. Eastlake 3rd, J. Abley, Y. Li
Category            : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
Source              : Internet Area Working Group
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to