Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1980)

[RFC Editor <rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Russ,

In our opinion, it's better to ammend the existing errata report.  The
errata system was not meant to hold errata for errata entries or to
hold multpile errata entries for the same error, as it could be
confusing for readers.

Please note that the responsible AD has the ability to edit the entry
before verifying it. 

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/sg


On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:19:20AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Julien ?LIE <julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > Maybe I should re-ask, before the verification takes place...
> > Didn't the mails I sent for errata 1979, 1980 and 1982 reach you?
> 
> They did, yes.
> 
> >> Given this, I agree with all the changes you propose and think the
> >> errata should be verified in its entirety.
> 
> > If the erratum is to be verified, be sure to also include the fourth paragraph
> > of Section 3.4.  It should also be amended:
> 
> >    predating this specification do not add an Injection-Date header.
> 
> > "field" is missing.
> 
> I agree with this change.  I'm not sure how this process works -- whether
> it's better to amend the existing errata or add another one.
> 
> > Another thing:  why is it "header field value" and not "header field
> > body"?  RFCs 5322 and 5536 define "header field body" but not "header
> > field value".  Where is the terminology drawn?
> 
> This is a good point that I didn't check originally.  It does sound like
> header field body might be a better term to use.
> 
> -- 
> Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>