Done. Sorry for missing this when it came through originally. -MSK
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:55 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Murray, Francesca, and Orie, > > We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as > editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, > please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions > at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). > > Please see John Levine’s email below. > > You may review the report at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7091 > > Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ > > Further information on errata can be found at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/rv > > > > On Aug 16, 2022, at 7:46 AM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Please reject this. Each report is about a single message even if the > incidents field says it's related to others. > > > > R's, > > John > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022, RFC Errata System wrote: > > > >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5965, > >> "An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports". > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> You may review the report below and at: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7091 > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> Type: Editorial > >> Reported by: Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> > >> > >> Section: 2 > >> > >> Original Text > >> ------------- > >> e. Except as discussed below, each feedback report MUST be related > >> to only a single email message. Summary and aggregate formats > >> are outside of the scope of this specification. > >> > >> > >> Corrected Text > >> -------------- > >> e. Except when using the Incidents field (see below), > >> each feedback report MUST be related > >> to only a single email message. Summary and aggregate formats > >> are outside of the scope of this specification. > >> > >> > >> Notes > >> ----- > >> There doesn't seem to be another discussion of similarity. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> RFC5965 (draft-ietf-marf-base-06) > >> -------------------------------------- > >> Title : An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports > >> Publication Date : August 2010 > >> Author(s) : Y. Shafranovich, J. Levine, M. Kucherawy > >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > >> Source : Messaging Abuse Reporting Format > >> Area : Applications > >> Stream : IETF > >> Verifying Party : IESG > >> > >> > > > > Regards, > > John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. > https://jl.ly > > > >
_______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
