Re: [Geojson] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7946 (7253)

[Tim Schaub <[e-mail]>]

I chose "Editorial" as the errata type because I thought this would be
classified as a "syntax error that does not affect the technical meaning"
of the specification.  Clearly it affects the reader's ability to
understand what the specification means, but I wasn't suggesting any
technical change to the specification itself.  Maybe the two are
indistinguishable (the meaning and the ability to understand the meaning).
I also don't have any experience with errata types and don't know if the
choice of type will make any difference going forward.

So for whatever it is worth, I'm ok with the change from "Editorial" to
"Technical" if that fits better with how these terms have been used.

Tim


On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 3:12 PM Chris Smiley <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> 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/eid7253
>
> 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 Nov 18, 2022, at 10:10 AM, RFC Errata System <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7946,
> > "The GeoJSON Format".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7253
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Editorial
> > Reported by: Tim Schaub <[e-mail]>
> >
> > Section: 5.2
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > Consider a set of point Features within the Fiji archipelago,
> > straddling the antimeridian between 16 degrees S and 20 degrees S.
> > The southwest corner of the box containing these Features is at 20
> > degrees S and 177 degrees E, and the northwest corner is at 16
> > degrees S and 178 degrees W.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > Consider a set of point Features within the Fiji archipelago,
> > straddling the antimeridian between 16 degrees S and 20 degrees S.
> > The southwest corner of the box containing these Features is at 20
> > degrees S and 177 degrees E, and the northeast corner is at 16
> > degrees S and 178 degrees W.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > In the antimeridian-crossing example, the text says that the "northwest"
> corner is at 16 degrees S and 178 degrees W.  It should say this is the
> "northeast" corner instead.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC7946 (draft-ietf-geojson-04)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : The GeoJSON Format
> > Publication Date    : August 2016
> > Author(s)           : H. Butler, M. Daly, A. Doyle, S. Gillies, S.
> Hagen, T. Schaub
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Geographic JSON
> > Area                : Applications and Real-Time
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> >
>
>