Re: [NNTP] [Errata Rejected] RFC3977 (2004)

Hi all,

[Russ]
>>> Yes, please.  We would clearly want to fix this in any revision of RF=
C
>>> 3977.  Personally, I would recommend that any implementor use 423 as
>>> described in Julien's analysis despite the wording of RFC 3977.

[Barry]
>> RFC Editor, will you please switch errata #2004 from "rejected" to
>> "hold for document update"?  Thanks.

[Alice]
> The status has been changed as requested:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3D2004

And also [Clive] of course, thanks to all of you!
The "hold for document update" status is pretty fine.



[Charles]
> a revision [of RFC3977] is unlikely in the foreseeeable future. Is ther=
e
> any mechanism whereby a NOTE can be added as an erratum pointing out
> that "With hindsight it might have been better to ..., and this
> should be revisited in any revision of this document"? As least that
> would alert people to the issue and hint that they might want to
> reconsider how to cope with it in their implementation.

I do not believe such a mechanism exists.  Unfortunately.
One has to go to the HTML version of the IETF site:
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977
and pay attention to the two red words "Errata Exist".  Then, carefully=20
read through all the submitted errata.

--=20
Julien =C9LIE

=AB Mieux vaut allumer une bougie que maudire les t=E9n=E8bres. =BB (Lao
   Zi)