RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 5657, "Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard", September 2009

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: gen

Errata ID: 1900
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-10-02
Verifier Name: Russ Housley
Date Verified: 2010-04-12

Section 5.5 says: 

|     [RFC4234] progressed from Proposed Standard through Draft Standard
|     to Standard and is obsoleted by [RFC5234].

It should say:

|     [RFC4234] progressed from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard and
|     then has been obsoleted by the Full Standard [RFC5234].

Notes:

Clear description of historical timeline.

Errata ID: 1901
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-10-02
Verifier Name: Russ Housley
Date Verified: 2010-04-12

Section 6.2 says: 

[[ second paragraph of Section 6.2 ]]

      VRFY and EXPN commands are often not implemented or are disabled.
      This does not pose an interoperability problem for SMTP because
|     EXPN is an optional features and its support is never relied on.
      [...]                     ^^

It should say:

      VRFY and EXPN commands are often not implemented or are disabled.
      This does not pose an interoperability problem for SMTP because
|     EXPN is an optional feature and its support is never relied on.
      [...]                     ^

Notes:

Correct typo.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 5657, "Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard", September 2009

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: gen

Errata ID: 8082
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: John Klensin
Date Reported: 2024-08-17

Throughout the document, when it says: 

BCP 9

It should say:

Informational

Notes:

At the time 5657 was adopted, there was such a thing as a Draft Standard, a category that was eliminated by RFC 6410. Hence, when it was published, this was appropriately a BCP. However, RFC 6410 not only eliminated the Draft Standard status but explicitly says, in Section 3.2,

"Although no longer required by the IETF Standards Processes, RFC 5657 [2] can be helpful to conduct interoperability testing."

While it is still appropriate to say that it updates RFC 2026, that statement appears to me to make 5657 purely advisory, i.e., an Informational document and it should be considered and reclassified accordingly.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search