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