Subject: [core] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7959 (6083)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:00:11 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7959,
"Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6083

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <[email-masked]>

Section: 2.1

Original Text
-------------
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       | No. | C | U | N | R | Name   | Format | Length | Default |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       |  23 | C | U | - | - | Block2 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       |     |   |   |   |   |        |        |        |         |
       |  27 | C | U | - | - | Block1 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+

                       Table 1: Block Option Numbers

Corrected Text
--------------
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       | No. | C | U | N | R | Name   | Format | Length | Default |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       |  23 | x | x | - |   | Block2 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       |     |   |   |   |   |        |        |        |         |
       |  27 | x | x | - |   | Block1 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+

                       Table 1: Block Option Numbers

Notes
-----
* This is to align with the conventions in Section 5.10 of RFC7252
* These options are not repeatable as per:

"Either Block option MUST NOT occur more than once in a
   single message."

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7959 (draft-ietf-core-block-21)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Publication Date    : August 2016
Author(s)           : C. Bormann, Z. Shelby, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Constrained RESTful Environments
Area                : Applications and Real-Time
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 21:20:58 +0200

Hi Med,

indeed, we should probably align the usage of the tables over the different RFCs in their respective future document updates (currently upper or lower case X or repetition of the column label for yes, minus or space for no).  It should be obvious that minus is another way to say no from RFC 7252, so there is no potential for confusion; the second note therefore is redundant.

My verdict is “hold for document update”.

Grüße, Carsten

> On 2020-04-09, at 21:00, RFC Errata System <[email-masked]> wrote:
>