RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (3)
RFC 2142, "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions", May 1997
Source of RFC: LegacyArea Assignment: app
Errata ID: 1082
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Frank Ellermann
Date Reported: 2007-11-20
Held for Document Update by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Held: 2010-09-15
Section 5 says:
MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS [...] USENET NNTP [RFC977] NEWS NNTP Synonym for USENET
It should say:
MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS [...] USENET NNTP [RFC1849] NEWSMASTER NNTP Synonym for USENET
Notes:
RFC 977 (obsoleted by RFC 3977) as well as RFC 1036 (obsoleted by RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor) don't specify rôle accounts USENET or NEWS.
Section 1 states that "Other protocols have defacto standards for well known mailbox names, such as <USENET@domain> for NNTP (see [RFC977])", however the IETF USEFOR WG didn't add just as little as an informative reference to RFC 2142.
IESG NOTE (2010-09-15): The foregoing text is corrupted, however the intent is clearly that [son-of-1036] is the proper reference for the USENET mailbox convention; note that in March 2010 [son-of-1036] was published as RFC 1849. --Peter Saint-Andre
Errata ID: 1763
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Nick Levinson
Date Reported: 2009-04-15
Held for Document Update by: Alexey Melnikov
Date Held: 2010-09-02
Section 1 says:
Most organizations do not need to support the full set of mailbox names defined here, since not every organization will implement the all of the associated ^^^ services.
It should say:
Most organizations do not need to support the full set of mailbox names defined here, since not every organization will implement all of the associated services.
Errata ID: 1764
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Nick Levinson
Date Reported: 2009-04-15
Held for Document Update by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Held: 2010-09-15
Section 1 & 2 says:
top level domain
It should say:
organization's principal domain name
Notes:
1. The phrase "top level domain" seems to mean 'second-level and top level domains together', and perhaps 'third- to top level domains together' in cases like <example.co.uk>. It is erroneous now that _top level domain_ (_TLD_) is specifically only what comes after the last dot in a domain, and nonreserved TLDs are so registered at IANA.org.
2. I would rather someone else propose replacement phrasing.
3. This is submitted 2009-04-16.
EDITOR'S NOTE (2010-09-15): This matter was discussed on the app-discuss and dnsext mailing lists, and consensus emerged on the phrase "organization's principal domain name". --Peter Saint-Andre