OK, I can believe that. But the wording is terrible and, as a save for next version, need to be completely clarified.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:31 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > I *think* the text is correct as written. There is a nuance in here > between * managed* protocol (i.e., aspects of the protocol itself) and > *management* protocol (something like SNMP that performs management of > monitoring of the protocol). > > > > My take is that while the current text might initially confuse the eyes, > this erratum should be rejected. > > > > Joe > > > > *From: *RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 18:17 > *To: *ietf...@comcast.net <ietf...@comcast.net>, war...@kumari.net < > war...@kumari.net>, mjethanand...@gmail.com <mjethanand...@gmail.com>, > henk.birkholz@ietf.contact <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>, Joe Clarke > (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> > *Cc: *d3e...@gmail.com <d3e...@gmail.com>, opsawg@ietf.org < > opsawg@ietf.org>, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > *Subject: *[Technical Errata Reported] RFC5706 (8315) > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5706, > "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and > Protocol Extensions". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8315 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> > > Section: 3.6.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > The protocol document should make clear the limitations implicit > within the protocol and the behavior when limits are exceeded. This > should be considered in a data-modeling-independent manner -- what > makes managed-protocol sense, not what makes management-protocol- > sense. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > The protocol document should make clear the limitations implicit > within the protocol and the behavior when limits are exceeded. This > should be considered in a data-modeling-independent manner -- what > makes managed-protocol sense, not what makes data model > sense. > > Notes > ----- > I am not sure what correct wording would be. The existing wording is self > contradictory. The above "corrected" text is just a guess. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5706 (draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-09) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management > of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions > Publication Date : November 2009 > Author(s) : D. Harrington > Category : INFORMATIONAL > Source : Operations and Management Area Working Group > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
