On 20. Dec 2024, at 05:29, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Erratum 5013 on RFC7250 (old editorial)
Interesting. So this has been reported in 2017 and edited in 2024. Why did it
get stuck again?
I’m speculating, but most likely because there is no response from authors/WG
chairs.
Clearly, the presentation of the errata report on the website (e.g., no diff
coloring) makes this small replacement artificially hard to handle.
I haven’t spent the 10 minutes to check the replacement text, but this looks
like a correction of an awkward wording.
("IANA has allocated two new TLS extensions”.)
Is it worth to have it as an erratum?
I think it would be a good example for delineating a boundary for what should
be done in an erratum.
(To me, HFDU would sound like a good way to indicate that, yes, this is indeed
a problem and should be noted, but it doesn’t need to be a verified errata
report.)
(The report doesn’t look like a vanity report as "Reported By: i” is not
enshrining anyone specifically.)
Grüße, Carsten
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
