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

Hi Barry,

>> 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...

Many thanks to you!
And sorry for pushing a bit to hard...


>> * 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.

Thanks !


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

OK, I understand that the status should remain the same.
My concern was that we found out the wording to use for Section 3.4.2=20
and two examples for Section 5.3.3 so as to fix the issue, and I do not=20
know how not to lose the work done.  (No need to do the work twice,=20
especially when the exact update is already known.)

--=20
Julien =C9LIE

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