Subject: [Geopriv] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3693 (4621)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:52:20 -0800 (PST)

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC3693, "Geopriv Requirements". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3693&eid=4621

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Jay R. Ashworth <[email-masked]>
Date Reported: 2016-02-17
Held by: Alissa Cooper (IESG)

Section: 8.1

Original Text
-------------
This means that Geopriv may not as a general matter, 
secure the Target against general traffic analysis attacks 
or other forms of privacy violations.

Corrected Text
--------------
This means that Geopriv might not, as a general matter, 
secure the Target against general traffic analysis attacks 
or other forms of privacy violations.

Notes
-----
Aside from the missing comma on the parenthetical, the use of MAY NOT, even uncapitalized, appears to collide with RFC 2119: It's pretty clear the authors intended to say that there may exist conditions in which Geopriv won't secure targets, but the chosen wording, interpreted in context of 2119, means that Geopriv *will not* or *must not* secure Targets, and that interpretation is sort of bogus.

In short: May here is directive, rather than predictive/descriptive, which seems what was intended.

--------------------------------------
RFC3693 (draft-ietf-geopriv-reqs-04)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Geopriv Requirements
Publication Date    : February 2004
Author(s)           : J. Cuellar, J. Morris, D. Mulligan, J. Peterson, J. Polk
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Geographic Location/Privacy
Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG