headers
Julien ÉLIE | 15 Jan 2010 23:55
Favicon

Errata for RFC 5536 and 5537


Hi,

According to previous discussion on the mailing-list, I reckon that
the statuses of current open errata for RFCs 5536 and 5537 are:

1979 -> still no validation, though I believe it should be VERIFIED.
        Can someone confirm?

1980 -> it should be reworded as follows, and VERIFIED.

1981 -> it should be VERIFIED.

1982 -> I don't know; the original text is right and reads better.
        Should it be VERIFIED or REJECTED?  (with a note added to
        say that both forms are correct English)

1983 -> it should be VERIFIED.

1993 -> it should be VERIFIED.

--

-- 
Julien

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RFC 5537 - Erratum 1980
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be VERIFIED.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Lisa Dusseault | 19 Jan 2010 21:35
Picon

Re: Errata for RFC 5536 and 5537


Done.  The editorial ones I marked "hold for document update" because
the terminology issues won't affect an implementation's correctness,
and I do not like making implementers wade through terminology
corrections looking for technical errata.

Thanks,
Lisa

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Julien ÉLIE <julien <at> trigofacile.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> According to previous discussion on the mailing-list, I reckon that
> the statuses of current open errata for RFCs 5536 and 5537 are:
>
> 1979 -> still no validation, though I believe it should be VERIFIED.
>       Can someone confirm?
>
> 1980 -> it should be reworded as follows, and VERIFIED.
>
> 1981 -> it should be VERIFIED.
>
> 1982 -> I don't know; the original text is right and reads better.
>       Should it be VERIFIED or REJECTED?  (with a note added to
>       say that both forms are correct English)
>
> 1983 -> it should be VERIFIED.
>
> 1993 -> it should be VERIFIED.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Julien ÉLIE | 19 Jan 2010 22:10
Favicon

Re: Errata for RFC 5536 and 5537


Hi Lisa,

> Done.  The editorial ones I marked "hold for document update" because
> the terminology issues won't affect an implementation's correctness,
> and I do not like making implementers wade through terminology
> corrections looking for technical errata.

OK, thanks!

> 1980 -> it should be reworded as follows, and VERIFIED.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1980

The correction is inconsistent and wrong.

I do not understand why we have:

---------------------------------------------------
Throughout the document, when it says:

(a)  Section 3.1, last paragraph:

|        ... trace headers ...

(b)  Section 3.4.4, second paragraph:

|        ... a References header, ...

(c)  Section 3.5, numbered processing steps:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Lisa Dusseault | 19 Jan 2010 23:22
Picon

Re: Errata for RFC 5536 and 5537


Hi Julien,

I appended your re-correction of the corrected text, rather than
replace, since you were not the reporter, introduced by "Julian Elie
suggests the corrected text: ".  Since the errata is held for document
update, the authors of the next version of the document can analyse
all the suggestions and can surely correct for formatting.

Lisa

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Julien ÉLIE <julien <at> trigofacile.com> wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
>
>> Done.  The editorial ones I marked "hold for document update" because
>> the terminology issues won't affect an implementation's correctness,
>> and I do not like making implementers wade through terminology
>> corrections looking for technical errata.
>
> OK, thanks!
>
>
>> 1980 -> it should be reworded as follows, and VERIFIED.
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1980
>
> The correction is inconsistent and wrong.
>
> I do not understand why we have:
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Julien ÉLIE | 20 Jan 2010 00:04
Favicon

Re: Errata for RFC 5536 and 5537


Hi Lisa,

> I appended your re-correction of the corrected text, rather than
> replace, since you were not the reporter, introduced by "Julian Elie
> suggests the corrected text: ".  Since the errata is held for document
> update, the authors of the next version of the document can analyse
> all the suggestions and can surely correct for formatting.

Buy is it a reason for not having errata of quality?

Well, if it is what you want, I can do nothing more.
I'm not going to argue more on that subject on which I have already
spent far too much time.

I will only say that:
 * the erratum mentions that I "suggest the corrected text", which is wrong
   because it is not my suggestion (the formatting I provided was better);
 * the erratum is inconsistent;
 * the process is inconsistent (no append for erratum 1787 for instance);
 * my first name has been mispelled in the edited text:  it is Julien,
   and not Julian.

But well, after all, I don't mind.  I just wanted to give some help
and review to have proper errata on rfc-editor.org but it appears that
it is not what people expect from rfc-editor.org; so be it that way.

I thought that people reading errata would be more pleased to have
detailed, complete information of good quality about an erratum.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane