Re: [NNTP] Errata 1707 and 1527 for RFC 3977

> As I see that you are currently pretty active on errata for RFC 3977, I
> believe it could be time to properly close the two remaining subjects that
> weren't updated two years ago.

Well, I've been trying to address "reported" errata that haven't been
classified, not trying to spin up more work.  :-)  But still....

> * Could the following rationale be added to erratum 1707 for RFC 3977 so as
> to explain the reason of the reject?

I have asked the RFC Editor to help me with this, off list.  We'll get
it sorted out.

> * Could erratum 1527 for RFC 3977 be updated and its status changed to
> "VERIFIED" so that it could be properly reviewed when the NNTP protocol
> moves from proposed standard to draft standard?

No, I'm afraid this isn't what errata are for.  The IESG reserves
"Verified" for this:

1. The report is correct, AND
2. the error would have been considered an error in the original
document, had it been noticed then (that is, this didn't come up
because things have changed since then, or "we don't really do it that
way in practice"), AND
3. implementors or deployers MUST see the correction, or they will
face implementation/deployment problems.

See the IESG statement on errata handling for more information:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html

This one appears to be exactly what "held for document update" is for:
It's flagged for review if/when the document is ever updated or
advanced on the standards track.  That seems to be just what you want
anyway, so there's no reason to change the status.

Barry