Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4647)

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