Hi Orie, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/).
You may review the report at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8004 Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ Further information on errata can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 26, 2024, at 5:51 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9537, > "Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8004 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com> > > Section: GLOBAL > > Original Text > ------------- > This document describes a Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) > extension for specifying methods of redaction of RDAP responses and > explicitly identifying redacted RDAP response fields, using JSONPath > as the default expression language. > > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > This document describes a Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) > extension for specifying methods of redaction of RDAP responses and > explicitly identifying redacted RDAP response fields. > > > Notes > ----- > The Abstract and the first sentence of the Introduction is "This document > describes a Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) extension for specifying > methods of redaction of RDAP responses and explicitly identifying redacted > RDAP response fields, using JSONPath as the default expression language.". > This sentence is combining two aspects into a single sentence ("explicitly > identifying redacted RDAP response fields" and "using JSONPath as the default > expression language") incorrectly. It is true that the extension is > "explicitly identifying redacted RDAP response fields" and it's true that > extension is "using JSONPath as the default expression language", but the > expression languages are optional and the use of JSONPath as the default > expression language is not relevant for the Abstract and first sentence of > the Introduction. The recommended change is to remove the ", using JSONPath > as the default expression language" from the sentences to correct it, > resulting in: > > "This document describes a Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) extension > for specifying methods of redaction of RDAP responses and explicitly > identifying redacted RDAP response fields." > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9537 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-16) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access > Protocol (RDAP) Response > Publication Date : March 2024 > Author(s) : J. Gould, D. Smith, J. Kolker, R. Carney > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Registration Protocols Extensions > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
