Re: [Idna-update] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5890 (7291)

[Chris Smiley <[e-mail]>]

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/eid7291

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 Dec 26, 2022, at 9:52 AM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5890,
> "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7291
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: John Klensin <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: GLOBAL
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> Request for Comments: 5890
> Obsoletes: 3490
> Category: Standards Track
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Request for Comments: 5890
> Obsoletes: 3490
> Updates: 4343
> Category: Standards Track
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> I have no idea whether this correction is Editorial or Technical , nor what to use as a Section indication.  However...
> 
> RFC 5890 (or IDNA2008 more generally), should have updated RFC 4343 and the IDN discussion in its Section 5.  The latter references the IDNA2003 documents and makes some statements that are, at best, confusing in the context of IDNA2008.
> 
> See the extended notes for RFC 4343 in https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7290 for more discussion and details.
> 
> Recommendation: Hold for document update unless this appears to anyone to be a serious problem, in which case a separate RFC, using the notes on Errata ID 7290 as a starting point, may be in order.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5890 (draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-13)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework
> Publication Date    : August 2010
> Author(s)           : J. Klensin
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (Revised)
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>