Errata Search
RFC Number:		Errata ID:
Source of RFC		Status:	All/Any Verified+Reported Verified Reported Held for Document Update Rejected
Area Acronym:	All/Any app art gen int ops rai rtg sec tsv wit	Type:	All/Any Editorial Technical
WG Acronym:		Submitter Name:
Other:	All/Any IAB INDEPENDENT IRTF Legacy Editorial	Date Submitted:
Summary Table Full Records

Found 8 records.

Status: Rejected (8)

RFC 6919, "Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", April 2013

Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT

Errata ID: 8497
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Josh McKinney
Date Reported: 2025-07-03
Rejected by: Eliot Lear
Date Rejected: 2025-07-04

Section 3 says:

   For example: "This command really should not be used" [RFC0493]

It should say:

   For example: "This command REALLY SHOULD NOT be used" [RFC0493]

Notes:

Similar to the logic in RFC8174, all the the examples SHOULD use all capitals
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thanks for the report. The examples quote actual RFCs. Maybe the wording should have been thought about at the time.

Errata ID: 8498
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Josh McKinney
Date Reported: 2025-07-03
Rejected by: Eliot Lear
Date Rejected: 2025-07-04

Section 5 says:

   For example: "A SMTP client would probably only want to authenticate
   an SMTP server whose server certificate has a domain name that is the
   domain name that the client thought it was connecting to."  [RFC3207]

It should say:

   For example: "A SMTP client WOULD PROBABLY only want to authenticate
   an SMTP server whose server certificate has a domain name that is the
   domain name that the client thought it was connecting to."  [RFC3207]

Notes:

Similar to the logic in RFC8174, all the the examples SHOULD use all capitals
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thanks for the report. The examples quote actual RFCs. Maybe the wording should have been thought about at the time.

Errata ID: 8496
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Josh McKinney
Date Reported: 2025-07-03
Rejected by: Eliot Lear
Date Rejected: 2025-07-04

Section 2 says:

   For example: "Applications that take advantage of typed links should
   consider the attack vectors opened by automatically following,
   trusting, or otherwise using links gathered from HTTP headers."
   [RFC5988]

It should say:

   For example: "Applications that take advantage of typed links SHOULD
   CONSIDER the attack vectors opened by automatically following,
   trusting, or otherwise using links gathered from HTTP headers."
   [RFC5988]

Notes:

Similar to the logic in RFC8174, all the the examples SHOULD use all capitals
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thanks for the report. The examples quote actual RFCs. Maybe the wording should have been thought about at the time.

Errata ID: 8499
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Josh McKinney
Date Reported: 2025-07-03
Rejected by: Eliot Lear
Date Rejected: 2025-07-04

Section 6 says:

   For example: "Verifiers MAY wish to track testing mode results to
   assist the Signer."  [RFC6376]

It should say:

   For example: "Verifiers MAY WISH TO track testing mode results to
   assist the Signer."  [RFC6376]

Notes:

Similar to the logic in RFC8174, all the the examples SHOULD use all capitals
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thanks for the report. The examples quote actual RFCs. Maybe the wording should have been thought about at the time.

Errata ID: 8500
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Josh McKinney
Date Reported: 2025-07-03
Rejected by: Eliot Lear
Date Rejected: 2025-07-04

Section 7 says:

   For example: "An implementation could mitigate this race condition,
   for example, using timers."  [RFC6733]

It should say:

   For example: "An implementation COULD mitigate this race condition,
   for example, using timers."  [RFC6733]

Notes:

Similar to the logic in RFC8174, all the the examples SHOULD use all capitals
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thanks for the report. The examples quote actual RFCs. Maybe the wording should have been thought about at the time.

Errata ID: 8501
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Josh McKinney
Date Reported: 2025-07-03
Rejected by: Eliot Lear
Date Rejected: 2025-07-04

Section 8 says:

   For example: "It is also possible for the server to send a completion
   response for some other command (if multiple commands are in
   progress), or untagged data."  [RFC3501]

It should say:

   For example: "It is also POSSIBLE for the server to send a completion
   response for some other command (if multiple commands are in
   progress), or untagged data."  [RFC3501]

Notes:

Similar to the logic in RFC8174, all the the examples SHOULD use all capitals
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thanks for the report. The examples quote actual RFCs. Maybe the wording should have been thought about at the time.

Errata ID: 8502
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Josh McKinney
Date Reported: 2025-07-03
Rejected by: Eliot Lear
Date Rejected: 2025-07-04

Section 9 says:

   For example: "In the case of audio and different "m" lines for
   different codecs, an implementation might decide to act as a mixer
   with the different incoming RTP sessions, which is the correct
   behavior."  [RFC5888]

It should say:

   For example: "In the case of audio and different "m" lines for
   different codecs, an implementation MIGHT decide to act as a mixer
   with the different incoming RTP sessions, which is the correct
   behavior."  [RFC5888]

Notes:

Similar to the logic in RFC8174, all the the examples SHOULD use all capitals
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thanks for the report. The examples quote actual RFCs. Maybe the wording should have been thought about at the time.

Errata ID: 8503
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Josh McKinney
Date Reported: 2025-07-03
Rejected by: Eliot Lear
Date Rejected: 2025-07-04

Section 4 says:

   For example: "If a decision might affect semantic transparency, the
   implementor ought to err on the side of maintaining transparency
   unless a careful and complete analysis shows significant benefits in
   breaking transparency."  [RFC2616]

It should say:

   For example: "If a decision might affect semantic transparency, the
   implementor OUGHT TO err on the side of maintaining transparency
   unless a careful and complete analysis shows significant benefits in
   breaking transparency."  [RFC2616]

Notes:

Similar to the logic in RFC8174, all the the examples SHOULD use all capitals
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Thanks for the report. The examples quote actual RFCs. Maybe the wording should have been thought about at the time.

Report New Errata