Sure, that's fine
On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 8:07 AM Sean Turner wrote:
> Since this is correctly marked as “Editorial” are there any objections to
> changing the state to “Hold For Document Update”?
>
> spt
>
> > On Aug 23, 2024, at 18:18, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> > I don't think this is an erra
Since this is correctly marked as “Editorial” are there any objections to
changing the state to “Hold For Document Update”?
spt
> On Aug 23, 2024, at 18:18, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> I don't think this is an erratum. I agree it would be better, but I don't
> think that rises to "error".
>
> -
I don't think this is an erratum. I agree it would be better, but I don't
think that rises to "error".
-Ekr
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 11:17 AM Rebecca VanRheenen
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as
> editorial, so we changed the Type to “Techni
Hi Paul,
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/).
Notes:
* RFC 6347 has
