Subject: [Json] more errata (references)

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:11:55 +0100

Hm.

    [Err3607]  RFC Errata, Errata ID 3607, RFC 3607,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

    [Err607]   RFC Errata, Errata ID 607, RFC 607,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

Really??

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:27:10 +0000

> <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3607>
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=607>

These two errata are on RFC 4627. Erratum 3607 is marked as "Held For 
Document Update" and 607 is marked as "Verified".

What's the question?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:31:56 +0100

>Document Update" and 607 is marked as "Verified".

Read the reference text more carefully. RFC 3607 is "Chinese Lottery
Cryptanalysis Revisited: The Internet as a Codebreaking Tool" and RFC
607 is "Comments on the File Transfer Protocol".
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:37:02 +0000

> 607 is "Comments on the File Transfer Protocol".

Where did Julian's text above come from? The RFC Editor web site? This 
sounds like a report of a bug on the RFC Editor web site, displaying the 
wrong RFC number, not an issue for this WG.

pr

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:39:19 +0000

On 4 Mar 2014, at 5:27 pm, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:

> These two errata are on RFC 4627. Erratum 3607 is marked as "Held For Document Update" and 607 is marked as "Verified".
> 
> What's the question?

Well, the references section seems to indicate that these errata are somehow related to RFC 3607 and RFC 607…

I haven’t looked those up, but I’m guessing they’re not to do with JSON.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:39:42 +0000

15.2 Informative References

On 4 Mar 2014, at 5:37 pm, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Where did Julian's text above come from? The RFC Editor web site? This sounds like a report of a bug on the RFC Editor web site, displaying the wrong RFC number, not an issue for this WG.
> 
> pr
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:42:00 -0800

Minor production screwup, it’s in the XML: <seriesInfo name="RFC"
value="607"/>

Live with it, I say.