RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (4)

RFC 7749, "The "xml2rfc" Version 2 Vocabulary", February 2016

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7991

Source of RFC: IAB

Errata ID: 4614
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Julian Reschke
Date Reported: 2016-02-05
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2017-02-13

Section 5 says: 

   <?xml version="1.0"?>

   <!DOCTYPE rfc [

     <!-- allow later RFC 2629 reference using "&rfc2629;" -->
     <!-- the data will be fetched from xml2rfc.ietf.org -->
     <!ENTITY rfc2629 PUBLIC
     "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
   ]>

It should say:

   <?xml version="1.0"?>

   <!DOCTYPE rfc [

     <!-- allow later RFC 2629 reference using "&rfc2629;" -->
     <!-- the data will be fetched from xml2rfc.ietf.org -->
     <!ENTITY rfc2629 SYSTEM
     "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
   ]>

Notes:

A "PUBLIC" entity would need an additional "PubidLiteral" (which could be an empty string); but it's simpler to use a "SYSTEM" entity instead.

See <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#sec-external-ent>.

[Verified per request of J. Reschke and H. Flanagan.]

Errata ID: 4715
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jim Schaad
Date Reported: 2016-06-20
Verifier Name: Robert Sparks
Date Verified: 2018-02-09

Section 2.22.3 says: 

 The value is a free-form text that allows counter values to be
      inserted using a "percent-letter" format.  For instance, "[REQ%d]"
      generates labels of the form "[REQ1]", where "%d" inserts the item
      number as a decimal number.

It should say:

 The value is a free-form text that allows counter values to be
      inserted using a "percent-letter" format.  For instance, 
"format [REQ%d]"
      generates labels of the form "[REQ1]", where "%d" inserts the item
      number as a decimal number.

Notes:

The string format must prefix the style text in order for it to be recognized and used. This means that the example given is incorrect as it will not generate the requested output.

It is possible that explanatory text to the effect of the string format being required is needed as well, however modification of the example should be sufficient.

Errata ID: 4850
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Heather Flanagan
Date Reported: 2016-10-31
Verifier Name: Robert Sparks
Date Verified: 2018-02-09

Section A.4. says: 

A.4.  The "consensus" Attribute

   For some of the publication streams (see Appendix A.3), the "Status
   of This Memo" section depends on whether there was a consensus to
   publish (again, see Section 3.2.2 of [RFC5741]).

   The "consensus" attribute ("yes"/"no", defaulting to "yes") can be
   used to supply this information.  The effect for the various
   streams is:

   o  "independent" and "IAB": none.

   o  "IETF": mention that there was an IETF consensus.

   o  "IRTF": mention that there was a research group consensus (where
      the name of the research group is extracted from the <workgroup>
      element).

It should say:

A.4.  The "consensus" Attribute

   For some of the publication streams (see Appendix A.3), the "Status
   of This Memo" section depends on whether there was a consensus to
   publish (again, see Section 3.2.2 of [RFC5741]).

   The "consensus" attribute ("yes"/"no", defaulting to "yes") can be
   used to supply this information.  The effect for the various
   streams is:

   o  "independent": none.

   o  "IAB": mention that there was an IAB consensus.

   o  "IETF": mention that there was an IETF consensus.

   o  "IRTF": mention that there was a research group consensus (where
      the name of the research group is extracted from the <workgroup>
      element).

Notes:

IAB documents may or may not include a consensus statement. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status-memos.txt, numbers 9-12.

Errata ID: 5394
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Julian Reschke
Date Reported: 2018-06-15
Verifier Name: Mirja Kühlewind
Date Verified: 2024-01-11

Section 2.33.3 says: 

   Note that the file extension is not part of the draft, so in general
   it should end with the current draft number ("-", plus two digits).

It should say:

   Note that the file extension is not part of the draft name, so in
   general it should end with the current draft number ("-", plus two
   digits).

Notes:

replace "draft" by "draft name"

Report New Errata



Advanced Search