Subject: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6530 (5750)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 22:08:46 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6530,
"Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5750

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Kyaw Thura Maung <[email-masked]>

Section: RFC 2119

Original Text
-------------
Techanical

Corrected Text
--------------
Editorial

Notes
-----
where Technical is an error in the technical content (This includes changes to the usage of RFC 2119 keywords.) and Editorial is a spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not affect the technical meaning.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6530 (draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email
Publication Date    : February 2012
Author(s)           : J. Klensin, Y. Ko
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Email Address Internationalization
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 08:09:24 -0400

RFC Editor:

I have no clue what this is about.

There is no "Section RFC2119" in the document, the term
"Techanical" does not appear with that spelling and "technical"
does not either.  If this is somehow a criticism of the last
paragraph of Section 1 in which the citation of RFC 2119 occurs,
I don't know what the issue is unless it might be a request to
cite RFC 8174, but, if that were the issue, it would justify
errata on almost every standards track RFC between 1997 (or
perhaps earlier, since that terminology appears (albeit without
the capitalization), in, e.g., RFC 1122 (October 1989)) and
somewhat after 8174 was published two years ago.  I think such
errata would constitute a massive DoS attack on authors and the
IETF.

Please reject, at least until and unless that those filing the
erratum can provide clear citations and description of what they
think is a problem.

    john

--On Saturday, June 8, 2019 22:08 -0700 RFC Errata System
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> where Technical is an error in the technical content (This
> includes changes to the usage of RFC 2119 keywords.) and
> Editorial is a spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error
> that does not affect the technical meaning.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary,
> please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be
> verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the
> verifying party   can log in to change the status and edit the
> report, if necessary. 
> 
> Title               : Overview and Framework for
> Internationalized Email Publication Date    : February 2012

---

From: Yurii Kargapolov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:04:46 +0300

Please, what is the substantive subject of the errata?

> Notes
> -----
> where Technical is an error in the technical content (This includes
> changes to the usage of RFC 2119 keywords.) and Editorial is a
> spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not affect the technical meaning.

> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

-- 

З повагою,
Ю. Каргаполов                         mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Megan Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 19:26:49 -0700

Greetings,

FYI - we have removed this report as junk.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf