RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (4)

RFC 3887, "Message Tracking Query Protocol", September 2004

Source of RFC: msgtrk (app)

Errata ID: 214

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2004-10-20

Section 5 says:

     All optional text provided with the COMMENT command are ignored.

It should say:

     All optional text provided with the COMMENT command is ignored.

Errata ID: 215

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Tony Hansen
Date Reported: 2005-11-07

Section 11 says:

           ...Thus, if an MTQP client/server pair decide to use TLS
     confidentially,...

It should say:

           ... Thus, if an MTQP client/server pair decides to use TLS
     confidentially, ...

Errata ID: 3721

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Ned Freed
Date Reported: 2013-09-10
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2013-09-11

Section 4.1 says:

S: Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=%%%%; type=tracking-status

It should say:

S: Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=%%%%;
S:  type="message/tracking-status"

Notes:

According to RFC 2387 section 3.1, the value of the type parameter for
multipart/related is supposed to be the "MIME media type of the 'root' body
part." Additionaly, section 3 of RFC 3886 specifically states that the value is
supposed to be "message/tracking-status". But all seven examples in section 4.1
show just the subtype as the parameter value.

*** This errata report applies to all of the examples in Section 4.1 ***

Errata ID: 5044

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Wolfgang Keller
Date Reported: 2017-06-20
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2017-06-23

Section 14.1. says:

   [RFC-MTRK-MODEL]   Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Models and
                      Requirements", RFC 3885, September 2004.

It should say:

   [RFC-MTRK-MODEL]   Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Model and
                      Requirements", RFC 3888, September 2004.

Notes:

The reference references a wrong RFC number. The text says RFC 3885, but the correct one is RFC 3888.

Verifier Notes: Also corrected title (Model not Models).

Report New Errata