Re: Errata for RFC 5536 and 5537

[Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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)
>