RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 5537, "Netnews Architecture and Protocols", November 2009
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8315
Source of RFC: usefor (app)
Errata ID: 1981
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-12-28
Verifier Name: Lisa Dusseault
Date Verified: 2010-01-19
Section 3.2.1 says:
... first paragraph:
If a relaying or serving agent receives an article from an injecting
| or serving agent that is part of the same news server, it MAY leave
^^^^^^^
the Path header field of the article unchanged. [...]
It should say:
If a relaying or serving agent receives an article from an injecting
| or relaying agent that is part of the same news server, it MAY leave
^^^^^^^^
the Path header field of the article unchanged. [...]
Notes:
Rationale:
Cf. the definition of agent roles presented in Section 1 and the
first paragraph of Section 3:
Serving agents only forward to reading agents, and in that step,
the articles are not modified in any way.
Errata ID: 1993
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Julien Élie
Date Reported: 2009-12-28
Verifier Name: Lisa Dusseault
Date Verified: 2010-01-19
Section 5.2.1.1 says:
A newgroup control message requesting creation of the moderated
newsgroup example.admin.info.
From: "example.* Administrator" <admin@noc.example>
Newsgroups: example.admin.info
Date: 27 Feb 2002 12:50:22 +0200
Subject: cmsg newgroup example.admin.info moderated
Approved: admin@noc.example
Control: newgroup example.admin.info moderated
Message-ID: <ng-example.admin.info-20020227@noc.example>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nxtprt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
It should say:
A newgroup control message requesting creation of the moderated
newsgroup example.admin.info.
| Path: not-for-mail
From: "example.* Administrator" <admin@noc.example>
Newsgroups: example.admin.info
Date: 27 Feb 2002 12:50:22 +0200
Subject: cmsg newgroup example.admin.info moderated
Approved: admin@noc.example
Control: newgroup example.admin.info moderated
Message-ID: <ng-example.admin.info-20020227@noc.example>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nxtprt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Notes:
As the mandatory Path: header field is missing, this control message is only a proto-article.
A control message is defined in Section 5 as an article which contains a Control: header field. Therefore, a Path: header field should be added to the headers of this sample newgroup control article.
Status: Reported (1)
RFC 5537, "Netnews Architecture and Protocols", November 2009
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8315
Source of RFC: usefor (app)
Errata ID: 4468
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Julien Élie
Date Reported: 2015-09-08
Section 3.5 says:
An injecting agent processes proto-articles as follows:
[...]
2. It MUST reject any proto-article that does not have the proper
mandatory header fields for a proto-article, that has Injection-
Info or Xref header fields, that has a Path header field
containing the "POSTED" <diag-keyword>, or that is not
syntactically valid as defined by [RFC5536].
It should say:
An injecting agent processes proto-articles as follows:
[...]
2. It MAY modify header fields so that the proto-article conforms
to [RFC5536]. If made, such modifications SHOULD be as
minimal as possible. The usual changes are the removal of
empty header fields and a bit of cleaning in folding or the
syntax used.
3. It MUST reject any proto-article that does not have the proper
mandatory header fields for a proto-article, that has Injection-
Info or Xref header fields, that has a Path header field
containing the "POSTED" <diag-keyword>, or that is not
syntactically valid as defined by [RFC5536].
Notes:
Subsequent items should be renumbered at the same time.
Rationale: most of server software has been removing empty header fields and made syntax cleaning for ages. Some news clients do rely on that "feature" of removing empty header fields, i.e by putting empty Followup-To, Summary and Keywords header fields into each article opened in the editor and not removing them if empty when posting the article.
Though RFC 1849 (Son-of-1036) says the posting agent SHOULD delete empty headers, in practice the relayer (injecting agent) took care of that when not done by the posting agent.
This erratum describes a variation from the standard and could be taken into account in a revision of RFC 5537, if it happens.