Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6857 (3955)

This erratum looks valid to me. I do note that the parenthetical note at
the end should not be included. There probably should be a separate
erratum for the Return-path issue, which should be held for document update.

				Ned

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6857,
> "Post-Delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized Email Messages".

> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6857&eid=3955

> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>

> Section: A

> Original Text
> -------------
>    Received: from ... by ...
>    Received: from ... by ...
>    From: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-LOCAL?=
>          =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-LOCAL@example.com?= :;
>    To:   =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-REMOTE1?=
>          =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-REMOTE1@example.net?= :;,
>          =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-REMOTE2?=
>          =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-REMOTE2@example.com?= :;,
>    Cc:   =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-REMOTE3?=
>          =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-REMOTE3@example.org?= :;

> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    Received: from ... by ...
>    Received: from ... by ...
>    From: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-LOCAL?=
>          =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-LOCAL=40example=2Ecom?= :;
>    To:   =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-REMOTE1?=
>          =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-REMOTE1=40example=2Enet?= :;,
>          =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-REMOTE2?=
>          =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-REMOTE2=40example=2Ecom?= :;,
>    Cc:   =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-REMOTE3?=
>          =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-REMOTE3=40example=2Eorg?= :;

> Notes
> -----
> The characters '@' and '.' cannot appear in an encoded-word occurring
> in a phrase (see rule 3 of section 5 of RFC 2047), so they must be escaped
> with '=40' and '=2E', respectively, in the Q encoding.

> (Note: A correction for the Return-Path header field is not given here because the downgrading method for the Return-Path field is wrong from the start: Return-Path is defined as a "path" ("angle-addr" or an empty pair of angle brackets) and not an "address", doesn't contain a "phrase", and isn't an unstructured header field, so the encoded word in Return-Path can't occur where it does in the example.  A future update of this document should take this into account.)

> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata 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 (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

> --------------------------------------
> RFC6857 (draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-08)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Post-Delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized Email Messages
> Publication Date    : March 2013
> Author(s)           : K. Fujiwara
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Email Address Internationalization
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima