Re: [CCAMP] RFC 4207 LMP Erratum (including proposed resolution)

[Lou Berger <lberger at labn.net>]

All,

I propose that the errata be set to type Editorial and that a note be
added stating that the wording "all of the TRACE Objects in a
TraceMonitor message" while technically accurate is misleading, and that
changing the all plural references to "TRACE Objects" to the singular
will eliminate this particular issue.

Read on if you're interested in details.

Dieter,
	I concur that only a single <TRACE> should be allowed.  The errata
quotes two issues.  Let's look at each:

"all of the TRACE Objects in a TraceMonitor message"

While this phrasing certainly implies there may be more than one object,
I think everyone will agree that "all" should be read to also cover the
singular case.  Given this, the phrase is technically accurate, but
nonetheless misleading.

"TRACE object value(s)".

Looking at the object, we see that it includes multiple fields each of
which carries a value.  If we look at the phrase in context we find:
   This
   could be because the trace monitoring requested is not supported or
   there was an error in the TRACE object value(s).

It seems to me there may be an error in any of the fields, so "value(s)"
is technically correct.  An equivalent phrasing is "an error in any of
the fields carried in a received TRACE object".  That said, I personally
don't see a difference or an issue with the current language.

Thank you for the input!

Lou

On 11/2/2009 11:47 AM, Dieter Beller wrote:
> Alfred,
> 
> this message is formatted as plain text message ;-)
> 
> If the issue is:
>> In short: either _all_ parts of the RFC should use plural for
>> TRACE object(s) in a TraceMonitor Message, or _none_.
>>   
> I would advocate *all singular*, i.e., there's exactly one TRACE object
> in a
> TraceMonitor Message and not multiple.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dieter
> 
> ah at TR-Sys.de wrote:
>> Dieter,
>>
>> Your message almost has been scrubbed as spam at our provider,
>> because of the lack of 'normal' content.  ("HTML-only" is one
>> of the most efficient criteria in spam filtering today!)
>> However, I have managed to 'de-HTLMize' the message ...   :-)
>>
>>  
>>> Hi Alfred,
>>> could you please explain why multiple <TRACE> objects for
>>> a single interface are needed? I fail to understand what the
>>> application is that requires this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dieter
>>>     
>>
>> First of all, I would like to refer you to the public errata report,
>> which -- you might have observed -- is almost 4(!) years old:
>>
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4207&presentation=records
>>
>> I apologize for not having the time to fully re-read RFC 4207 now,
>> due to current overload, but I hope that the reasoning presented in
>> the Errata Report in 2005 is still valid.  I do not recall all the
>> details, but I'm quite sure it had not been based on specific
>> application scenarios, but rather on lack of consistency with other
>> parts of the RFC.  Please check and let me know if something's
>> wrong there.  If there indeed are good arguments against the
>> conclusion in the Errata Note, the quoted other parts of the RFC
>> might need reconsideration/clarification instead.
>>
>> In short: either _all_ parts of the RFC should use plural for
>> TRACE object(s) in a TraceMonitor Message, or _none_.
>>
>> Below, I have attached the original report once sent to the
>> authors of RFC 4207, which did not solicit a response those days
>> and has been entered later into the new RFC Errata database
>> by busy beavers at the RFC-Ed...
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>   Alfred HÎnes.
>>
>>   
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp