RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Verified (4)
RFC 3887, "Message Tracking Query Protocol", September 2004
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8553, RFC 8996
Source of RFC: msgtrk (app)
Errata ID: 214
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2004-10-20
Section 5 says:
All optional text provided with the COMMENT command are ignored.
It should say:
All optional text provided with the COMMENT command is ignored.
Errata ID: 215
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tony Hansen
Date Reported: 2005-11-07
Section 11 says:
...Thus, if an MTQP client/server pair decide to use TLS confidentially,...
It should say:
... Thus, if an MTQP client/server pair decides to use TLS confidentially, ...
Errata ID: 3721
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ned Freed
Date Reported: 2013-09-10
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2013-09-11
Section 4.1 says:
S: Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=%%%%; type=tracking-status
It should say:
S: Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=%%%%; S: type="message/tracking-status"
Notes:
According to RFC 2387 section 3.1, the value of the type parameter for
multipart/related is supposed to be the "MIME media type of the 'root' body
part." Additionaly, section 3 of RFC 3886 specifically states that the value is
supposed to be "message/tracking-status". But all seven examples in section 4.1
show just the subtype as the parameter value.
*** This errata report applies to all of the examples in Section 4.1 ***
Errata ID: 5044
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Wolfgang Keller
Date Reported: 2017-06-20
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2017-06-23
Section 14.1. says:
[RFC-MTRK-MODEL] Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Models and Requirements", RFC 3885, September 2004.
It should say:
[RFC-MTRK-MODEL] Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Model and Requirements", RFC 3888, September 2004.
Notes:
The reference references a wrong RFC number. The text says RFC 3885, but the correct one is RFC 3888.
Verifier Notes: Also corrected title (Model not Models).