Subject: [netmod] consensus on errata (was enumeration type)

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:04:53 +0100

Hi,

do we have concensus on errata 3871 and 3872?

  http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6020&eid=3871
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6020&eid=3872

Should it be marked as 'Verified'?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: David Spakes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:21:50 -0500 (EST)

> Should it be marked as 'Verified'?

I made a proposal based on the posts of three contributors, including
myself.  The text of my proposal is essentially the same as Jonathan's
errata text.  If there are no objections, then as far as I am concerned,
it is verified, and there is concensus.

-dss

-------------------------------------------------------------
 David Spakes                       email:   [email-masked]
 SNMP Research                      voice:   +1 865 573 1434
 3001 Kimberlin Heights Road          fax:   +1 865 573 9197
 Knoxville, TN  37920-9716  USA      http://www.snmp.com
-------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:17:20 +0100

On 25 Jan 2014, at 00:04, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Should it be marked as 'Verified’?

+1

Lada

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:26:53 +0100 (CET)

> Should it be marked as 'Verified'?

Yes.

/martin