[ This message is in continuation of this old thread: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=121151167724118&w=2 ]
2008/5/23 Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ropers wrote: >> 2008/5/21 ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kendall Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> I'm having a hard time understanding it. In many places they use 2 >>>>> numbers, e.g. 2(21) or 232 (4,294,967,296). Can you understand what they >>>>> are saying? >>> >>> I am really heartened to see how quickly everybody here has responded >>> and pointed out the error and correction. >>> >>> I am less delighted that 3com, who I emailed about this probably over >>> 2 years ago, and who said they were going to look into this, *still* >>> haven't fixed their PDF. >>> >>> Maybe if everybody who responded to this thread were to email them as >>> well, *maybe* that would help. >> >> Or we could just post some errata at >> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#Intro , where the PDF is liked. >> Would the FAQ maintainers be in favour of this? If so, then I could >> probably write a diff for http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html . > > s/Or/And/ > :) > > sometimes, the best thing one can do with a bug is document it, which > may prompt people to say, "hey, that sucks!", and fix it. > > Another solution would be to find/write a replacement document/site. > (HTML preferred over pdf). > > Show me a diff. I am not interested in the FAQ being a errata sheet > for someone else's document, but an advisory that the typography is > hosed would not be bad (a better resource would be..uh..better). > > Nick. Hi Nick (& everybody), I would like to apologize for taking such an unreasonable amount of time to get back to you on this. Here's what I've done now: I have gone through the entire PDF and identified most or (hopefully) all of the errors. I've then used PDFedit ( http://pdfedit.petricek.net/index_e.html ) to correct the PDF file as best as I could. (PDFedit allows the user to edit existing PDF files, within limits. It's not really easy to use, but it does sort of work.) I will now try to go through my backups and dig out the old email exchange from way back when I contacted 3com about the errors in their document. I want to ask them to either replace their error-ridden PDF with the corrected one, or to give me permission to host the corrected one somewhere myself. If they're not constructive/responsive/cooperative, then I plan to shame them with the original email exchange, where they promised to look into this (IIRC). Failing that, this might be another instance where gentle or not so gentle public pressure might be called for. Sure, it's not nearly as important as e.g. hardware docs, but I consider these errors bugs, and they deserve to be fixed upstream. If this is all unsuccessful, then I wonder whether it might be possible to create a port for the document? Is it possible to sort of create binary diffs/patches, that only contain the changes to their file and make that into a port, so OpenBSD users can get the corrected document that way. (I've never done anything like that before.) However, there's a part of the document ( http://www.3com.com/other/pdfs/infra/corpinfo/en_US/501302.pdf ) that I haven't yet corrected, and can't/won't correct on my own without asking for your opinion. I'm talking about the section on IPv6: While the rest of the document is quite good except for the formatting errors, the IPv6 section appears to have been added as an afterthought and edited by someone who didn't know or care, with the expectation that nobody would notice. This section is the numbered pages 43 through 51 (pages 45 through 53 of the PDF). I wonder if you all could help me with the following: - On page 43, Figure 36 is described as depicting "a full hexadecimal to binary IPv6 address". However, the image only shows seven, not eight 16-bit integers (with leftmost zeroes omitted each time). - Formatting niggle (not a bug): On page 43/44, it would be better to structure/emphasize or bullet-point the paragraphs starting "The preferred form/The compressed form/The third form". - On page 44, in table 4, the bottom row goes: > "FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:43 the unspecified address ::" The address FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:43 that's given in this row is the same as the one given in the second row, where it is described as "a multicast address". I don't think FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:43 is correct in the bottom row, and I don't see how it would correspond to ::. - On the same page, it says: > "This form is represented as X:X:X:X:X:X:X:X:D.D.D.D. Where the Xs represent > the hexadecimal values of the six high order 16-bit pieces of the address." I think that X:X:X:X:X:X:X:X:D.D.D.D. has two Xs too many. That should be six, not eight Xs, am I right? - On the same page, in table 5, the address 0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38 is given in the bottom row. I think that's one 0 too few. It should be 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38, am I right? - On page 47, in Figure 38, the same IPv6 address 3FFE:2900:1::/48 is given twice, both with NLA1 and SLAII. That can't be right, can it? - On page 49, an IPv6 address example list is given. It is explained about that list that > "the underlined portion of each address identifies the network prefix which > is calculated through the prefix length notation. In other words, since /48 > is the prefix length notation, then the first four integers will be the > prefix length and the rest will be the interface ID. Because each integer > equals 16, the calculation is 48 divided by 16 equals 4." However, the underlined parts of the addresses shown in the list on that page are 64 bit long, not 48, and 48 divided by 16 does not equal 4 (but 64 divided by 16 does). - On page 50, Figure 39 is titled > "ISP #2's More Specific Route into the Internet" Wouldn't "Internet routing examples" be a more appropriate title, given that an ISP #2 or ISP #1 is not mentioned elsewhere in the document? - On the same page, in Figure 39, the same IPv6 address ABF2:45AF:2574:9980:7654:FCD4:FF26:0072 is shown as assigned to two different PC interfaces (cf. right hand side, under router B). That can't be right, can it? I would love to hear your feedback/corrections. In fairness, it may be quite a while until I get ahold of that old 3com email exchange I mentioned, and until I get around to getting on 3com's nerves^W^W^W^W^W^W contacting 3com. Many thanks for your help and your patience. Thanks and regards, ropers (Jens Ropers)
