- From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:21:26 -0400
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, jingzl@microsoft.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 March 2016 at 19:19, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> 2 editorial issues in section 5.1 and section 11.2. > > > Valid. Though neither demand a change. Lowercase "may" is > acceptable, though perhaps a poor choice of word in context. And > s/Section/Specification aligns better with the registration template, > but worse with the document itself. Actually, I'm going to disagree with the first: I think this is absolutely not a 2119 "MAY". The definition of "open" isn't presenting a protocol option. It's stating a fact, that this is what open streams are used for. > We should mark this "Hold for document update" Apart from the above, it's not generally a good idea to submit one errata report for multiple distinct errata. I ask the submitter to please re-submit these as two separate reports, declaring the relevant section in each (not "global"). And I ask the RFC Editor to remove this report in anticipation of that. The submitter should also consider that I will mark the "MAY" portion of the report as "Rejected". I agree that HFDU is a suitable disposition for the table heading. Barry
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 14:21:56 UTC