RFC Errata
Found 18 records.
Status: Verified (14)
RFC 2026, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", October 1996
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3667, RFC 3668, RFC 3932, RFC 3978, RFC 3979, RFC 5378, RFC 5657, RFC 5742, RFC 6410, RFC 7100, RFC 7127, RFC 7475, RFC 8179, RFC 8789, RFC 9282
Source of RFC: poised95 (gen)
Errata ID: 522
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Scott Bradner
Date Reported: 2002-08-01
Section 10.4 says:
"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11..."
Notes:
The reference to BCP-11 should be to BCP-9 (RFC 2026 itself).
Errata ID: 524
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Bob Harvey
Date Reported: 2002-12-30
Section 2.1 says:
Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC series. (see section 5)
It should say:
Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to to perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form the 'BCP' (Best Current Practice) subseries of the RFC series. When a specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC series. (see section 5)
Notes:
The following words are missing:
'BCP' (Best Current Practice) subseries of the RFC Series. When a
Errata ID: 523
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Morris M. Keesan
Date Reported: 2003-10-07
Section 9.1 says:
This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some
provision of this document is felt to be required.
It should say:
This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waiving of some
provision of this document is felt to be required.
Errata ID: 586
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Morris M. Keesan
Date Reported: 2003-10-07
Section 10.3.1 says:
4. The contributor represents that contribution properly
acknowledge major contributors.
5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and
the owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree
that no information in the contribution is confidential and
that the ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely
disclose any information in the contribution.
It should say:
4. The contributor represents that the contribution properly
acknowledges major contributors.
5. The contributor, the organization (if any) he represents and
the owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree
that no information in the contribution is confidential and
that the ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely
disclose any information in the contribution.
Notes:
verb agreement ("acknowledges") and spelling correction ("contributor")
Errata ID: 1622
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Stéphane Bortzmeyer
Date Reported: 2008-12-01
Verifier Name: Russ Housley
Date Verified: 2009-10-01
Section 6.5.2 says:
ISEG Chair
It should say:
IESG Chair
Errata ID: 2007
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Julian Reschke
Date Reported: 2010-01-17
Verifier Name: Russ Housley
Date Verified: 2010-03-02
Section 10.4 says:
This document and translations of it may be copied and
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or
otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be
prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in
part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above
copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such
copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may
not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright
notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or
as required to translate it into languages other than English.
It should say:
This document and translations of it may be copied and
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or
otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be
prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in
part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above
copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such
copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may
not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright
notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or
as required to translate it into languages other than English.
Notes:
"implementation" is misspelled.
Errata ID: 3014
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Paul Aitken
Date Reported: 2011-11-04
Verifier Name: Russ Housley
Date Verified: 2011-12-06
Section 6.5.4 says:
[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered "reasonable" in all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be reached.]
It should say:
[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered "reasonable" in all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately forgoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be reached.]
Notes:
s/foregoes/forgoes/
"foregoes" means "to go before; precede."
"forgoes" means "to abstain or refrain from; do without."
Errata ID: 3015
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Paul Aitken
Date Reported: 2011-11-04
Verifier Name: Russ Housley
Date Verified: 2011-12-06
Section 10.3.1 says:
5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and the
owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that
no information in the contribution is confidential and that the
ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any
information in the contribution.
It should say:
5. The contributor, the organization (if any) he represents and the
owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that
no information in the contribution is confidential and that the
ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any
information in the contribution.
Notes:
s/contribuitor/contributor/
Errata ID: 3016
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Paul Aitken
Date Reported: 2011-11-04
Verifier Name: Russ Housley
Date Verified: 2011-12-06
Section 10.3.1. says:
By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.
It should say:
By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the contribution. Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.
Notes:
s/contribution../contribution./
Errata ID: 6658
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jason Yundt
Date Reported: 2021-08-15
Verifier Name: Lars Eggert
Date Verified: 2023-08-11
Section Status says:
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices
It should say:
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practice
Notes:
“Practices” should be singular.
Errata ID: 6659
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jason Yundt
Date Reported: 2021-08-15
Verifier Name: Lars Eggert
Date Verified: 2023-08-11
Section 1.2 says:
The procedures described in this document are the result of a number of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.
It should say:
The procedures described in this document are the result of a number of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and increasingly diverse Internet community and by experience.
Notes:
The list contains 2 items:
• “by the needs of the growing and increasingly diverse Internet community”
• “by experience”
Since the list contains 2 items, there shouldn’t be a comma before the word “and”.
Errata ID: 6661
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jason Yundt
Date Reported: 2021-08-16
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Section 8 says:
In the case of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda that specifies the standards- related issues that will be discussed.
It should say:
In the case of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda that specifies the standards-related issues that will be discussed.
Notes:
Either the hyphen or the space could be removed. I removed the space since the next sentence says “standards-related”.
Errata ID: 6669
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jason Yundt
Date Reported: 2021-08-31
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2022-01-27
Section 10.3.1 says:
l. Some works[…]
It should say:
1. Some works[…]
Notes:
This was the only item in the list that used a letter and not a number.
Errata ID: 7181
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alvaro Retana
Date Reported: 2022-10-25
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2022-10-27
Section 4.2.4 says:
Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.)
It should say:
Move to Section 4: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.)
Notes:
The note in §4.2.4 (Historic) applies to standards track documents in general, and not specifically to Historic documents (which are not in the Standards Track) as it seems by including it in that subsection.
The text should be moved, unchanged (except for maybe removing the leading "Note:") to be the last paragraph in §4 (before the start of §4.1).
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 2026, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", October 1996
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3667, RFC 3668, RFC 3932, RFC 3978, RFC 3979, RFC 5378, RFC 5657, RFC 5742, RFC 6410, RFC 7100, RFC 7127, RFC 7475, RFC 8179, RFC 8789, RFC 9282
Source of RFC: poised95 (gen)
Errata ID: 2044
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Lars Eggert
Date Reported: 2010-02-15
Held for Document Update by: Russ Housley
Section 10.4 says:
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will
not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
assigns.
It should say:
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will
not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
assignees.
Notes:
Assigns vs. assignees in the boilerplate text. xml2rfc generates the latter (which appears to be correct), idnits currently allows both variants.
The same change needs to be applied in Section 10.3.1 bullet item 7.
Errata ID: 6671
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jason Yundt
Date Reported: 2021-08-31
Held for Document Update by: Lars Eggert
Date Held: 2023-08-11
Section 13 says:
[1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1996.
[2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for
Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
[3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.
[4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.
[5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.
[6] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs are
Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995.
It should say:
[1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1996.
[2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for
Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
[3] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.
[4] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.
[5] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs are
Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995.
Notes:
Reference number 3 is never used. If this change is made, then the inline citations will also have to be updated.
Status: Rejected (2)
RFC 2026, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", October 1996
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3667, RFC 3668, RFC 3932, RFC 3978, RFC 3979, RFC 5378, RFC 5657, RFC 5742, RFC 6410, RFC 7100, RFC 7127, RFC 7475, RFC 8179, RFC 8789, RFC 9282
Source of RFC: poised95 (gen)
Errata ID: 6420
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jason Yundt
Date Reported: 2021-02-03
Rejected by: Lars Eggert
Date Rejected: 2021-03-11
Throughout the document, when it says:
"10.1. General Policy", "10.3. Rights and Permissions", "10.3.1. All Contributions", "10.3.2. Standards Track Documents", or "10.4. Notices"
It should say:
"10.1 General Policy", "10.3 Rights and Permissions", "10.3.1 All Contributions", "10.3.2 Standards Track Documents", or "10.4 Notices"
Notes:
When a top-level section is introduced, its number is followed by a period. For example, section 1 begins with "1. INTRODUCTION", and section 14 begins with "14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS". This is consistent.
When a subsection is introduced, its number usually not followed by a period, but it sometimes is. For example, section 3.3 begins with "3.3 Requirement Levels", but section 10.1 begins with "10.1. General Policy". This is inconsistent. These inconsistencies are also in the Table of Contents.
--- VERIFIER NOTES ---
These slight formatting inconsistencies do not cause any confusion for a reader. If this document is updated, they will be automatically corrected through the use of the xml2rfc toolchain, so this erratum does not need to be held for document update.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Errata ID: 7688
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Crystal Ball
Date Reported: 2023-10-26
Rejected by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Rejected: 2024-01-12
Section Idkf says:
Jejf
It should say:
Ndjfk
Notes:
Rejecting as junk.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Ndjfk Jejf Idkf... and also asdfasdfasdfasdf!