Subject: Re: [PCN] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5696 (1969)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:21:12 -0500

On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 14:58 -0800, Steven Blake wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 17:56 -0500, Steven Blake wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 09:35 +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> > > > Using the terminology forwarded by Lars - I am happy for this to be
> > > "Hold for Document Update".
> > > > > If you are after WG consensus for all the other PCN errata  
> reported by
> > > Alfred Hoenes (1968 & 1973-1976), I think I would suggest "Hold for
> > > Document Update" for all of them. They are all typographical in nature
> > > and have no impact on the content of the RFCs...
> > > Does anyone in the working group object to this approach?  If not (and I
> > don't), then we will move the process forward with this recommendation.
>
> Note: it's the holiday season, and many people (myself included)
> probably aren't checking email frequently.  So I plan to wait for
> objections until the first week of January.
>
I haven't seen any objections, so tomorrow I will ask the ADs to "Hold  
for Document Update" the following errata:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5670&eid=1968
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5696&eid=1969
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5559&eid=1973
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5559&eid=1974
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5559&eid=1975
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5559&eid=1976

Regards,

// Steve