RFC 9537, "Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response", March 2024

Errata ID: 8006
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: James Gould
Date Reported: 2024-06-27
Rejected by: Orie Steele
Date Rejected: 2024-08-12

Section 4.2 says:

The "postPath" member MUST be set when the redacted field does exist
in the redacted response for the Redaction by Empty Value Method
(Section 3.2), the Redaction by Partial Value Method
(Section 3.3), and the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4).

It should say:

The "postPath" member MAY be set when the redacted field does exist
in the redacted response for the Redaction by Empty Value Method
(Section 3.2), the Redaction by Partial Value Method
(Section 3.3), and the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4).

Notes:

The “postPath” member is an OPTIONAL member and this MUST can provide confusion. The intent of this sentence was to outline which of the path members (“prePath”, “postPath”, and “replacementPath”) to use when using path expressions and not to conflict with the OPTIONAL definition. All of the path expression members are defined as OPTIONAL in the RFC, so this MUST needs be changed to a MAY to correct the confusion.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/

> 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.

I believe it would be harmful to mark this as HFDU, because the normative requirements for implementations would be less clear, and the document might never be updated.

Report New Errata