Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7725 (5512)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

To be clear, this statement went through IETF and IESG review as part of 
the original document. Removing it would be a material change to the 
contents of the document without first gaining consensus from the 
appropriate parties. The errata process cannot be used to make this kind 
of material change.

/a

On 10/2/18 12:26 AM, Curt Self wrote:
> Thanks. At least my concern was heard and taken seriously.
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018, 9:43 PM Tim Bray <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Mark, you are entirely incorrect.  What this isn’t is an erratum,
>     the singular word for a member of the plural class of errata.
>
>     On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:27 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         REJECT. This isn't an errata.
>
>         Cheers,
>
>         > On 2 Oct 2018, at 10:15 am, RFC Errata System
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7725,
>         > "An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles".
>         >
>         > --------------------------------------
>         > You may review the report below and at:
>         > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5512
>         >
>         > --------------------------------------
>         > Type: Editorial
>         > Reported by: Curt Self <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         >
>         > Section: 3
>         >
>         > Original Text
>         > -------------
>         > Note that in many cases clients can still access the denied
>         resource
>         > by using technical countermeasures such as a VPN or the Tor
>         network.
>         >
>         > Corrected Text
>         > --------------
>         > (remove the sentence)
>         >
>         > Notes
>         > -----
>         > I understand that the status code itself is kind of a joke
>         (Fahrenheit 451), but the sentence above seems to have no
>         place in a technical document. It provides no insight into use
>         cases for either a client or implementing software.
>         >
>         > 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.
>         >
>         > --------------------------------------
>         > RFC7725 (draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04)
>         > --------------------------------------
>         > Title               : An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal
>         Obstacles
>         > Publication Date    : February 2016
>         > Author(s)           : T. Bray
>         > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>         > Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
>         > Area                : Applications and Real-Time
>         > Stream              : IETF
>         > Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>         --
>         Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
>     https://keybase.io/timbray)
>