- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 11:04:34 +0200
- To: Chris Smiley <csmiley@amsl.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, tsahara@iij.ad.jp, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Am 14.09.2022 um 22:36 schrieb Chris Smiley: > > Greetings, > > Thank you for your review. As this erratum is proposing new text be added to the RFC, we have set the type to technical and asked the IESG to review the report. The Area Director may change the Type to Editorial when they set the status. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/cs FWIW, any proposed erratum either changes text, removes text, or adds text. So under which conditions would you keep the status "Editorial" without looping in the IESG? In this case, the added text is in a change log. It doesn't affect the definition of the protocol. So it's clearly editorial. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2022 09:04:54 UTC