--- Begin Message ---
Hello David,
I looked in my mail archive and the only RFC 4181 errata that I
found were in the attached message from 1 Nov 2005. These, as it
happens, have been posted by the RFC Editor, contrary to what I said
below. After so long away from the subject my memory of it is
failing :-(
I do have some vague recollections of some other stuff that came up
when we discussed the RFC 4181 update to recognize the IETF Trust
(which became RFC 4841), but I can't find anything in my records.
Bert once volunteered to convert the doucment in to xml2rfc format,
and I sent him some errata that **may** have contained more than
those in the attached message -- but I'm not sure.
Bert, if you have anything lying around that might help please
forward it to David.
Thanks,
Mike
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, David Harrington wrote:
> OK. If you send me the errata list, I will try to update the document
> (and convert source to xml2rfc format in the process).
>
> Thanks,
> dbh
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard at pobox.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:42 AM
> > To: David Harrington
> > Cc: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
> > Subject: RE: Does another RFC4181 update need to be done?
> >
> > I have the nroff source for the draft that was approved for
> > publication. That source does not include the changes made by the
> > RFC, nor any subsequently reported errata (and not all of the ones
> > reported by me and Alfred Hoenes were posted on the RFC Editor
> > site). There is no xml2rfc source.
> >
> > Let me know if you want what I have. Probably the most accurate way
>
> > to do the update would be to start from the RFC text and the errata.
>
> > I kept a list of errata that I could dig out for you. I did that
> > once for Bert.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, David Harrington wrote:
> > > Do you have the sources?
> > > I might find time to do a quick update.
> > >
> > > dbh
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard at pobox.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 1:51 AM
> > > > To: David Harrington
> > > > Cc: Dan Romascanu; Ron Bonica; Bert Wijnen (IETF)
> > > > Subject: Re: Does another RFC4181 update need to be done?
> > > >
> > > > Yes it does -- but I don't have the time to do it.
> > > >
> > > > It was a mistake (IMHO) to ever put any IPR stuff into 4181. It
> > > > delayed the document by 1.5 years, waiting for the IPR WG to get
> > > > done with RFCs 3978 and 3979, and those docs have now been updated
> > > > twice now. If 4181 is ever rewritten and reissued, it should point
> > > > to the legend instruction URLs -- which, one hopes, will be more
> > > > stable than the actual copyright text.
> > > >
> > > > Mike Heard
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, David Harrington wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does another RFC4181 update need to be done?
> > > > > See attached.
> > > > >
> > > > > dbh
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: RFC Editor [mailto:rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:12 PM
> > > > > To: Glenn M. Keeni; Pasi Eronen; Tim Polk; Russ Housley
> > > > > Cc: Stacy Burns; Chris Lonvick; David Harrington; RFC Editor
> > > > > Subject: [ADs] Re: AUTH48 [SB]: RFC 5427
> > > > > <draft-ietf-syslog-tc-mib-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
> > > > >
> > > > > Glenn, Pasi, and Tim,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the copyright in the MIB need to be updated? The text currently
> > > > > reads:
> > > > >
> > > > > DESCRIPTION
> > > > > "The MIB module containing textual conventions for syslog
> > > > > messages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2009). This version of
> > > > > this MIB module is part of RFC 5427; see the RFC itself for
> > > > > full legal notices.
> > > > > "
> > > > >
> > > > > The BSD license in the IETF-Trust-License-Policy document states:
> > > > >
> > > > > Copyright (c) <insert year> IETF Trust and the persons identified as
> > > > > authors of the code. All rights reserved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > RFC Editor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:17:30AM +0900, Glenn M. Keeni wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > I, an author of RFC 5427, am aware of the new copyright notice
> > > > > > and I do approve this document (RFC 5427) for publication under
> > > > > > the RFC 5378 copyright notice and legends.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Glenn
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stacy Burns wrote:
> > > > > > > Correction, inline.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RFC Editor/sb
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Stacy Burns wrote:
> > > > > > >> Glenn,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As of 10 November 2008, the RFC Editor has been instructed to publish
> > > > > > >> documents with the copyright notice and legends adopted by the IETF
> > > > > > >> by the publication of BCP 78 / RFC 5378. Please review the new
> > > > > > >> copyright notice and legends and the text located at
> > > > > > >> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If you, as an author of RFC 5410, agree with the copyright and
> > > > > > > If you, as an author of RFC 5427 ...
> > > > > > >> legends as defined in RFC 5378, please send us an explicit
> > > > > > >> acknowledgment that you are aware of the new copyright notice and
> > > > > > >> legends and that you approve this document for publication under the
> > > > > > >> RFC 5378 copyright notice and legends. If all of the authors agree,
> > > > > > >> we will update RFC 5410 to reflect the new copyright notice as it
> > > > > > >> appears in Item 6b of
> > > > > > >> http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf, and
> > > > > > >> continue with the publication process.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> However, if you are unable to agree to publish the document with the
> > > > > > >> new copyright notice and legends, please let us know, and we will
> > > > > > >> delay publication until the issue has been resolved. The appropriate
> > > > > > >> parties are working to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. We
> > > > > > >> plan to update you on the situation and provide an email address
> > > > > > >> (once it is available) where you can send your questions and/or
> > > > > > >> concerns regarding the new copyright notice and legends.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please note that document currently available at
> > > > > > >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5427.txt doesn't reflect the 5378
> > > > > > >> copyright. You must review it at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> RFC Editor/sb
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Alfred HÎnes wrote:
> > I've [...] observed two minor typos in the text of RFC 4181
> > that migth be worth noting for consideration in the case of
> > any future update to this RFC:
> >
> > * The bottom text line of page 29 says:
> >
> > " ... . Two point are worth reiterating:"
> > ^^
> > It should say:
> >
> > " ... . Two points are worth reiterating:"
> >
> > * The first line of item 8 in Appendix A, on page 34, says:
> >
> > "... -- if the draft does not contains a verbatim copy ..."
> > ^
> > It should say:
> >
> > "... -- if the draft does not contain a verbatim copy ..."
>
> RFC Editor:
>
> As document editor, I would like to request than an RFC Erratum be
> created for RFC 4181 listing these errors. Thanks to Alfred HÎnes
> for pointing them out.
In addition to the above, I have noticed the following formatting
error in the first bullet in Section 4.6.1.1 on p. 14. The text
in the RFC looks like this:
- For integer-valued enumerations:
- INTEGER is REQUIRED; - Integer32, Unsigned32, and Gauge32 MUST
NOT be used.
and it should look like this:
- For integer-valued enumerations:
- INTEGER is REQUIRED;
- Integer32, Unsigned32, and Gauge32 MUST NOT be used.
I would appreciate it if you would include this item when you create
the erratum for RFC 4181.
Regards,
Mike Heard
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---