Re: Open errata on RFC 6265

Hi Francesca,

Thanks for bringing these errata to my attention.

Here's how each erratum should be handled.

Held:

* 8242: Accepted and will be fixed in
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2991 .

Open:

* 6093: Accepted and will be fixed in
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2991 .

* 6719: Rejected. UAs and Servers have different requirements and a UA is
expected to be able to handle a wider range of inputs than the well-behaved
profile for Servers that is defined in Section 4. This erratum is similar
to 3430 which was likewise rejected.

* 7604: Accepted and has already been fixed in the current draft.

- Steven

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:03 AM Francesca Palombini <
francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> As IETF Last Call for 6265bis is starting, I took a look at the errata
> state for RFC 6265, and there are currently 4 errata in “Reported” status,
> and 2 in “Hold for doc update”.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6265&rec_status=15&presentation=records
>
>
>
> I looked in the mailarchive, but I don’t see any discussion (I expect the
> reason is because these errata reports got sent not to this wg, but to the
> http-state mailing list).
>
>
>
> I did verify that the “Verified” ones got included in the 6265bis. Of the
> two “Held for doc update”, one got included, the other (errata ID: 8242)
> didn’t. This last one has only been actioned on this month, so I want to
> make sure it was characterized correctly.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts on those 5 open errata and on the recently marked Held for
> doc update (8482)? I’d like to close all the open reports before 6265bis
> reaches the IESG.
>
> Thanks,
> Francesca
>