Subject: [yam] #1: Erratum 691 for RFC 3798

From: "yam issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:38:26 -0000

#1: Erratum 691 for RFC 3798
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]       |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:     
Component:  pre-evaluation-template    |     Version:     
 Severity:  Waiting for Expert Review  |    Keywords:     
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Erratum 691 for RFC 3798 posted by Alexey Melnikov on 6 Sept, 2009

 Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
 Date Reported: 2004-10-20

 Appendix A

 (1) disposition types
 =====================
 The dispositions "denied" and "failed" were removed from the
 document reflecting the lack of implementation or usage ...

 Now, the syntax production "disposition-type" in section 3.2.6. (on
 page 14) and section 7. (on mid-page 22) has been changed to read:

    disposition-type = "displayed" / "deleted"

 This means that the RFC 2298 disposition types "dispatched" and
 "processed" have been removed from the syntax definitions as well!

 Thus, either Appendix A lacks mentioning these removals  OR  these
 items should not have been removed from the syntax definitions.

 Nevertheless, all these disposition types removed from the syntax are
 mentioned at many places throughout RFC 3798:

 o  "dispatched" :

   - section 3.2.6. , final paragraph of the section on page 16
   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18

 o  "processed" :

   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18
   - section 5. , 4th paragraph on page 18

 o  "denied" :

   - section 2.1. , bottom of page 4
   - section 2.1. , end of 3rd paragraph on page 5
   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18
   - section 6.2. , end of first paragraph on page 19

 o  "failed" :

   - section 2.2. , middle of second-to-last paragraph on page 6
   - section 2.2. , middle of second paragraph on page 7 (twice)
   - section 2.2. , third paragraph on page 7 (twice)
   - section 3.2.7. , in 2nd text line, on page 16
                    (mis-spelled "failure" there)
   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18

 All these places in the text deal with the issue/sending/generation
 of MDNs with the named deprecated disposition types (it would be
 acceptable to talk about what to do with *received* such disposition
 types for backwards compatibility with RFC 2298) !

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/1>
yam <http://tools.ietf.org/yam/>