RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 8228, "Guidance on Designing Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) Supporting Variant Labels", August 2017

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP

Errata ID: 5670
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Asmus Freytag
Date Reported: 2019-03-23
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2019-03-25

Section 13 says:

In this document, the symbol "r-n" means "a reflexive 
(identity) mapping of type 'n'".

It should say:

In this document, the symbol "r-k" means "a reflexive
(identity) mapping of type 'k'".

Notes:

The notation "r-n" is used a few lines later for "r-neither". Therefore, a different letter needs to be used for a generic placeholder for all types. "k" seems appropriate.

Errata ID: 5671
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Asmus Freytag
Date Reported: 2019-03-23
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2019-03-25

Section 17 says:

The following shows such an example resulting in conflicting 
reflexive variants:

It should say:

The following shows such an example resulting in conflicting 
variant dispositions:

Notes:

typo

Errata ID: 6107
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Asmus Freytag
Date Reported: 2020-04-14
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2020-04-14

Section 14 says:

Because no variant label with any code point outside the repertoire
   could ever be allocated, the only logical choice for the non-
   reflexive mappings to out-of-repertoire code points is "blocked".

It should say:

Because no variant label with any code point outside the repertoire
   would ever be allocated in this example, the only logical choice for the non-
   reflexive mappings to out-of-repertoire code points is "blocked".

Notes:

As written the sentence makes an absolute claim that isn't in accordance with RFC7940. While not usual, there are circumstances where allowing allocatable variants for a code point that has a reflexive "out-of-repertoire-var" mapping may make sense. Therefore, the statement needs to be read as restricted to the specific scenario or example under discussion.

Report New Errata