Hi Carsten,
At 11:54 PM 19-12-2024, Carsten Bormann wrote:
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.)
I would not classify the erratum as
editorial. The original text is correct. My
guess is that the reporter was looking at that
part of the document from a different angle. I
would choose "hold for document update" in case
there was any issue which was overlooked. The
registry was updated in 2018. it make matters a bit confusing.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
