RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 3693, "Geopriv Requirements", February 2004

Source of RFC: geopriv (rai)

Errata ID: 4621

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Jay R. Ashworth
Date Reported: 2016-02-17
Held for Document Update by: Alissa Cooper
Date Held: 2016-02-18

Section 8.1 says:

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

It should say:

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.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×