Re: [Cellar] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8794 (7187)

Chris Smiley <csmiley@amsl.com> Tue, 15 November 2022 21:43 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Chris Smiley <csmiley@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221030074235.7BAE3F650@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:43:26 -0800
Cc: slhomme@matroska.org, dave@dericed.com, moritz@bunkus.org, cellar@ietf.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <38713B8E-6377-4D60-9BB7-35D99C6164A2@amsl.com>
References: <20221030074235.7BAE3F650@rfcpa.amsl.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/LTtiHTb47nnkzZ3-LSIP3fU_DPI>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8794 (7187)
Precedence: list

Greetings Area Directors,

We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial.  
Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata 
report 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/eid7187

Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for further 
information on how to verify errata reports.

Further information on errata can be found at: 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/cs


> On Oct 30, 2022, at 12:42 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8794,
> "Extensible Binary Meta Language".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7187
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>
> 
> Section: 15.1.
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>   Non-mandatory EBML Elements can be added in a new EBMLDocTypeVersion.
>   Since they are not mandatory, they won't be found in older versions
>   of the EBMLDocTypeVersion, just as they might not be found in newer
>   versions.  This causes no compatibility issue.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   Non-mandatory EBML Elements can be added in a new DocTypeVersion.
>   Since they are not mandatory, they won't be found in older versions
>   of the DocTypeVersion, just as they might not be found in newer
>   versions.  This causes no compatibility issue.
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Use DocTypeVersion in the text rather than EBMLDocTypeVersion for more consistency.
> 
> See https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/ebml-specification/pull/405
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8794 (draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-17)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Extensible Binary Meta Language
> Publication Date    : July 2020
> Author(s)           : S. Lhomme, D. Rice, M. Bunkus
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission
> Area                : Applications and Real-Time
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>

[Cellar] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8794 (718… RFC Errata System
Re: [Cellar] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8794 … Chris Smiley