On 02/08/2017 02:52 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I think there's a difference between an example that includes
"Reply-To" when it should have included "Subject" (that'd be a
technical error) and an example that includes "Sujbect" when it should
have included "Subject" (that'd be an editorial error)... even though
both of those errors might cause the signature not to verify.
I think an incorrect number of space characters is in the latter category.
As a passing engineer who doesn't spend that much time spelunking IETF
processes, a question that appears to be begged here is why the
distinction matters. This is not immediately clear from any of the
Status and Type of RFC Errata page
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/>, the How to Report
Errata page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/>, or the FAQ
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/>. There is an important distinction
when categorising changes during the preparation of an RFC (broader
approval is required for technical changes), but this does not appear to
apply to errata. Are you able to throw some light on this?
(On the question that Dave has raised:
* I'd suggest that text which - in addition to being intended for
human readers to understand - is intended for copy+paste into the
input of an automated tool for interpretation by that tool but which
contains typos contains what seems more like a technical than
editorial error, even though the technical information being
communicated to a human reader is essentially unchanged. This
appears consistent with the first of the examples cited on the
errata page; in that case anyone writing a validating parser and
having it fail on the sample would quickly recognise the reversed
order of the tags in the text, but it is nonetheless classified as
technical.
* I also note that the How to Report Errata page makes specific
mention of what to do in ambiguous cases: "Tip: If the type is not
clear, select Technical, and add your concern to the Notes."
)
- Roland
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html