Status Descriptions for RFC Errata
||The erratum has been reported but is unverified.
||The erratum has been edited as necessary and
verified as accurate by the stream-specific
party (SSP). Note that errata that were submitted before November 2007
may have been verified by an author, rather than a representative of
For the IETF stream:
"The erratum is appropriate under the criteria below and
should be available to implementors or people deploying the RFC." - IESG statement on "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream"
|Held for Document Update||"The erratum is not a necessary update
to the RFC. However, any future update of the document might
consider this erratum, and determine whether it is correct and
merits including in the update." - IESG statement on "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream"||
|Rejected||"The erratum is in error, or proposes a change to the
RFC that should be done by publishing a new RFC that replaces the
current RFC. In the latter case, if the change is to be
considered for future updates of the document, it should be
proposed using channels other than the errata process, such as a
WG mailing list." - IESG statement on "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream"
Type Descriptions for RFC Errata
||error in the technical content (Note that changes in the usage of RFC 2119 keywords are considered technical.)
||a spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not affect the technical meaning
Go to the RFC Errata page.
Last updated 10 June 2010.