Re: Errata for RFC 5536 and 5537

Done.  The editorial ones I marked "hold for document update" because
the terminology issues won't affect an implementation's correctness,
and I do not like making implementers wade through terminology
corrections looking for technical errata.

Thanks,
Lisa

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Julien =C9LIE <[email protected]> wro=
te:
> Hi,
>
> According to previous discussion on the mailing-list, I reckon that
> the statuses of current open errata for RFCs 5536 and 5537 are:
>
> 1979 -> still no validation, though I believe it should be VERIFIED.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Can someone confirm?
>
> 1980 -> it should be reworded as follows, and VERIFIED.
>
> 1981 -> it should be VERIFIED.
>
> 1982 -> I don't know; the original text is right and reads better.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Should it be VERIFIED or REJECTED? =A0(with a note added to
> =A0 =A0 =A0 say that both forms are correct English)
>
> 1983 -> it should be VERIFIED.
>
> 1993 -> it should be VERIFIED.
>
>
> --
> Julien
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> RFC 5537 - Erratum 1980
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It should be VERIFIED.
>
> The following sections should be changed (with line breaks removed
> in the notes section only, because they are otherwise put at wrong
> places in the web version):
>
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> (a) =A0Section 3.1, last paragraph:
>
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 ... trace headers ...
>
> (b) =A0Section 3.4, fourth paragraph:
>
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 ... an Injection-Date header.
>
> (c) =A0Section 3.4.4, second paragraph:
>
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 ... a References header, ...
>
> (d) =A0Section 3.5, numbered processing steps:
> =A0 =A0 4. =A0[...]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0... in the Newsgroups
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 header is valid.
>
> =A0 [...]
>
> =A0 6. =A0[...]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[...] =A0It
> =A0 =A0 =A0 MAY add other header fields not already provided by the poste=
r,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 but injecting agents are encouraged to use the Injection-Info
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 header for such information and to minimize the addition of
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 other headers. =A0[...]
> =A0| =A0 7. =A0If the Newsgroups header contains one or more moderated gr=
oups
> =A0 =A0 =A0 and the proto-article does not contain an Approved header fie=
ld,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 the injecting agent MUST either forward it to a moderator as
> =A0 =A0 =A0 specified in Section 3.5.1 or, if that is not possible, rejec=
t
> =A0 =A0 =A0 it. =A0This forwarding MUST be done after adding the Message-=
ID
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 and Date headers if required, and before adding the Injecti=
on-
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 Info and Injection-Date headers.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(e) =A0Section 3.6, first paragraph
>
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 ... forgery of Path and Injection-Info headers, ...
>
> (f) =A0Section 5.2.1, first paragraph:
>
> =A0The newgroup control message requests that the specified group be
> =A0created or, if already existing, that its moderation status or
> | =A0description be changed. =A0The syntax of its Control header field is=
:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0control-command =A0 =A0 =3D/ Newgroup-comm=
and
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Newgroup-command =A0 =A0=3D "newgroup" Newgroup-arguments
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[...]
>
> (g) =A0Section 5.2.2, first paragraph:
>
> =A0The rmgroup control message requests that the specified group be
> =A0removed from a news server's list of valid groups. =A0The syntax of it=
s
> | =A0Control header field is:
>
> (h) =A0Section 5.2.3, first paragraph:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[...] =A0The syntax of
> | =A0its Control header field is:
>
> (i) =A0Section 5.2.3, last paragraph:
>
> =A0The body of the message is an entity of type application/
> =A0news-checkgroups. =A0It SHOULD be declared as such with appropriate
> | =A0MIME headers, but news servers SHOULD interpret checkgroups messages
> | =A0that lack the appropriate MIME headers as if the body were of type
> =A0application/news-checkgroups for backward compatibility.
>
> (j) =A0Section 5.3, first paragraph:
>
> =A0The cancel control message requests that a target article be
> =A0withdrawn from circulation and access. =A0The syntax of its Control
> | =A0header field is:
>
> (k) =A0Section 5.5, second paragraph:
>
> =A0ihave and sendme control messages share similar syntax for their
> | =A0Control header fields and bodies:
>
> (l) =A0Appendix A, first bullet:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 [...] =A0Folding of the
> | =A0 =A0 Path header is permitted.
>
>
>
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> (a) =A0Section 3.1, last paragraph:
>
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 ... trace header fields ...
>
> (b) =A0Section 3.4, fourth paragraph:
>
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 ... an Injection-Date header field.
>
> (c) =A0Section 3.4.4, second paragraph:
>
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 ... a References header field, ...
>
> (d) =A0Section 3.5, numbered processing steps:
>
> =A0 4. =A0[...]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0... in the Newsgroups
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 header field is valid.
>
> =A0 [...]
>
> =A0 6. =A0[...]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[...] =A0It
> =A0 =A0 =A0 MAY add other header fields not already provided by the poste=
r,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 but injecting agents are encouraged to use the Injection-Info
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 header field for such information and to minimize the addit=
ion |
> =A0 of other header fields. =A0[...]
> =A0| =A07. =A0 If the Newsgroups header field contains one or more modera=
ted
> =A0 =A0 =A0 groups and the proto-article does not contain an Approved hea=
der
> =A0 =A0 =A0 field, the injecting agent MUST either forward it to a modera=
tor
> =A0 =A0 =A0 as specified in Section 3.5.1 or, if that is not possible,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 reject it. =A0This forwarding MUST be done after adding the
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 Message-ID and Date header fields if required, and before a=
dding
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 the Injection-Info and Injection-Date header fields.
>
> (e) =A0Section 3.6, first paragraph
>
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 ... forgery of Path and Injection-Info header fields, ...
>
> (f) =A0Section 5.2.1, first paragraph:
>
> =A0The newgroup control message requests that the specified group be
> =A0created or, if already existing, that its moderation status or
> | =A0description be changed. =A0The syntax of its Control header field
> | =A0body is:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0control-command =A0 =A0 =3D/ Newgroup-comm=
and
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Newgroup-command =A0 =A0=3D "newgroup" Newgroup-arguments
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[...]
>
> (g) =A0Section 5.2.2, first paragraph:
>
> =A0The rmgroup control message requests that the specified group be
> =A0removed from a news server's list of valid groups. =A0The syntax of it=
s
> | =A0Control header field body is:
>
> (h) =A0Section 5.2.3, first paragraph:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[...] =A0The syntax of
> | =A0its Control header field value is:
>
> (i) =A0Section 5.2.3, last paragraph:
>
> =A0The body of the message is an entity of type application/
> =A0news-checkgroups. =A0It SHOULD be declared as such with appropriate
> | =A0MIME header fields, but news servers SHOULD interpret checkgroups
> | =A0messages that lack the appropriate MIME header fields as if the body
> =A0were of type application/news-checkgroups for backward compatibility.
>
> (j) =A0Section 5.3, first paragraph:
>
> =A0The cancel control message requests that a target article be
> =A0withdrawn from circulation and access. =A0The syntax of its Control
> | =A0header field body is:
>
> (k) =A0Section 5.5, second paragraph:
>
> =A0ihave and sendme control messages share similar syntax for their
> | =A0Control header field bodies and message bodies:
>
> (l) =A0Appendix A, first bullet:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 [...] =A0Folding of the
> | =A0 =A0 Path header field is permitted.
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> Rationale:
> Contrary to its companion document, RFC 5536, this RFC mixes precise
> IETF terminology for protocol elements and colloquial abuse of it in
> various places. =A0For clarity and consistency, it should also
> inequivocally make use of the standard terminology; the fields
> of the "header" that a protocol layer or sub-layer adds to its
> payload are "header fields", not "headers" in itself.
> Similarly, denoting as "header field" a "header field body" is
> confusing -- items (f), (g), (h), (j), and (k) above.
>
>