On 2/7/2017 10:25 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Assuming they do, this errata report should be marked "Verified", but
the type should be changed to "Editorial", not "Technical".
Hmmn. It's really both, a technical error caused by an editorial change.
No: a Technical erratum is one where the spec actually says something
technically wrong, such that if you implemented according to the spec,
your implementation would be wrong. Missing space characters in
examples == Editorial.
Hmmm. I'm not worried about this error doing damage to the community,
but since the formality of 'errata' is at issue in this exchange, I find
the online guidance just ambiguous enough to be significant...
I suspect that "says something technically wrong" is meant to constrain
things to the specification content, but that's not what the RFC-Editor
definition says, nor is it clear to me that it should be that constrained.
The guidance at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/
Technical error in the technical content (Note that changes in the usage
of RFC 2119 keywords are considered technical.)
Editorial a spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not
affect the technical meaning
The current error has technical import, since we are talking about a
broken validation.
So, I'm not at all clear that this qualifies as only an 'Editorial' error.
Mumble.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html