I think reporting errata was a good decision. However, looking at this discussion here I am bit confused on whether it should be “Verified” or “Hold for Document Update”. See the IESG statement on processing RFC errata for IETF stream https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/> . I am only considering guideline 1 and 2 for this errata.
Any suggestion? //Zahed > On 6 Jan 2022, at 02:52, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 12:30, Christian Huitema wrote: >> On 1/5/2022 3:22 PM, Kazuho Oku wrote: >>> 2022年1月6日(木) 9:50 Lucas Pardue <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Erratum sounds good to me. it's an easier aide memoir than a post-it note >>>> pointer to a mailing list thread. >>>> >>> +1. MT's text looks good to me. >> >> +1. > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-2dab3b36f98e5e89&q=1&e=2c69260a-f7ee-4213-a156-a1211bad8de2&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid6811
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
