Re: [Errata Verified] RFC7889 (5726)

>> Editorial, though, because it's in examples.  The ABNF is the authoritative place, and that's correct.
>
> This is helpful to know, and when you put it like that, makes complete sense to me.  I suppose part
> of my confusion stems from the fact that I reported an erratum for an example in an RFC about two
> years ago and it was verified as technical.  Is this something that varies across disciplines?

No, I think it's something that varies according to the judgment of
different ADs.

The IESG errata guidelines
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-processing-rfc-errata-ietf-stream/>
say this:

<< Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems
or significant confusion should be Verified. >>

That's kind of vague.  This AD takes that to mean that an error in an
example should be "Verified" (rather than "Held for Document Update"),
but that it's editorial, not technical.  Other ADs have different
interpretations.

Perhaps it'd be nice if there was complete consistency, but
individuals are individuals, and we don't agree on
<strike>anything</strike> everything.

Barry

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext