[IP-SFS] Possible error in RFC 4824

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Jogi Hofmüller said:
>> The forms you show actually encode the SFSes Y and M respectively.  Could
>> you please confirm that interfaces should use the correct forms for SFSes
>> V and Y for these control signals rather than those in the RFC text?
> Yes, I can confirm that the correct forms for SFSes KAL and RTT are V
> and Y.

Thanks.

> This is an embarrasing error and I am quite sad that none of us
> found it prior to publishing :(

It happens.

>> In addition, you have omitted three other SFSes that, like Z, are unused in
>> IP-SFS:

> True. Erase could have been listed as unused. We didn't bother about
> numbers since it doesn't have any significance in IP-SFS.

Surely it's a valid unused signal?

> The space sign
> is used and should have been mentioned.

Presumably it's the signal used in State Idle? I also forgot the "gap"
signal:

          0
         |||
         / \

used to separate consecutive identical SFSes.

> Thanks for being so observant! Unfortunately these errors will remain
> since the IETF does not allow changes to published RFCs.

You could always do an updating RFC.

> I hope you
> still like the document though ;)

Very much so. I only wish I'd thought of the idea first.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc            |                            |