[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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:
---------------------------------------------------
It should say:
(a) Section 3.1, last paragraph:
| ... trace header fields ...
(b) Section 3.4.4, second paragraph:
| ... a References header field, ...
(c) Section 3.5, numbered processing steps:
Julian Elie suggests the corrected text:
Corrected Text
--------------
(a) Section 3.1, last paragraph:
| ... trace header fields ...
(b) Section 3.4, fourth paragraph:
| ... an Injection-Date header field.
(c) Section 3.4.4, second paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------
It does not match the letters (a), (b), (c), etc.
I thought that the new original text I suggested was to be put
instead of the previous original text. And my corrected text
instead of the previous corrected text. And also my suggestion
of note. Otherwise, everything is inconsistent.
Besides, the original text contains a typo:
g) Section 5.2.3, first paragraph:
(
[...] The syntax of
| its Control header field is:
And all my corrected text is badly formatted. It was not what
I suggested at all!
Missing leading spaces, (d) totally wrong...
Could you please fix it?
Thanks beforehand,
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Ex nihilo nihil. » (Perse)