Errata

Status:

Verified

Type:

Editorial

Reported By:

John Klensin

Date Reported:

2018-01-31

Verified by:

Robert Sparks

Date Verified:

2018-02-02

Section A.2.2 says:

Documents approved for publication
by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
"IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; ...

It should say:

Documents approved for publication by the [stream approver
-- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are
not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; ...

Notes:

--- Verifier Notes : The originally submitted "Corrected Text" is below. The Corrected Text was edited to make it clear which option was chosen. ---

Documents approved for publication by the [stream approver
-- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are
not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; ...

--or--

A document approved for publication by the [stream approver
-- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] is 
not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; ...

--- End Verifier Notes ---
The present sentence is egregiously bad English, at roughly the "every fourth-grader is English-speaking countries is expected to know better" level.  Having it in this document and, because of what it specifies, in every non-IETF-stream RFC, reflects badly on the IAB, the RFC Editor, and the RFC Series.  In addition, because we do not explicitly differentiate between boilerplate text and text supplied and approved by authors, it may reflect badly on individual document  authors.   

If it is not possible for this erratum to be quickly reviewed and approved, with the RFC Editor allowed to make this (and if necessary other) clearly editorial change to boilerplate text for documents published after today, I suggest that explicit notes be added to "Status of this Memo" sections going forward that identify the boilerplate text  and its sources.  For example, a new first sentence should be added immediately after "Status of this Memo"  that says "This section and the one on Copyright that follows, are as specified by the Internet Architecture Board [RFC7841] and the Trustees of the IETF Trust."

The problem identified here may suggest that, when 7841 and similar documents are revised, it may be better to establish principles and leave specific text to agreements between the relevant bodies and the RFC  Editor rather than building exact text to be used into archival and hard-to-revise documents.

Status:

Held for Document Update

Type:

Editorial

Reported By:

Julian Reschke

Date Reported:

2016-05-30

Held for Document Update by:

Robert Sparks

Date Held for Document Update:

2018-02-09

Section 3.2 says:

No original text provided.

Notes:

Sections 3.3 through 3.6 should have been subsections of 3.2, as they describe parts of "status of this memo". See also RFC 5741 which has this right.