Status and Type of RFC Errata

Status Definitions

Status Name Description Examples
Reported The erratum has been reported but is unverified.


Verified 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 the SSP. For the IETF stream: “The erratum is appropriate under the criteria below and should be available to implementers 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 it and determine whether it merits including in an update.” – IESG statement on “IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream”
Rejected “The erratum is invalid or proposes a significant change to the RFC that should be done by publishing a new RFC that replaces or updates the current one. 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 Definitions

Type Name Description Examples
Technical error in the technical content (Note that changes in the usage of RFC 2119 keywords are considered technical.)
Editorial a spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not affect the technical meaning