[regext] [Errata Rejected] RFC9537 (8006)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 12 August 2024 17:52 UTC

To: jgould@verisign.com, jgould@verisign.com, dsmith@verisign.com, jkolker@godaddy.com, rcarney@godaddy.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240812175233.DBEE03B874@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:52:33 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 3E7X7IIA6YXE4NEWFOTOCIK3JBPGX7UY
CC: orie@transmute.industries, iesg@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] [Errata Rejected] RFC9537 (8006)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/zlg1X7ZFsXB_Tu4NdkYM9xne8xc>

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC9537,
"Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8006

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>
Date Reported: 2024-06-27
Rejected by: Orie Steele (IESG)

Section: 4.2

Original Text
-------------
The "postPath" member MUST be set when the redacted field does exist
in the redacted response for the Redaction by Empty Value Method
(Section 3.2), the Redaction by Partial Value Method
(Section 3.3), and the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4).

Corrected Text
--------------
The "postPath" member MAY be set when the redacted field does exist
in the redacted response for the Redaction by Empty Value Method
(Section 3.2), the Redaction by Partial Value Method
(Section 3.3), and the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4).

Notes
-----
The “postPath” member is an OPTIONAL member and this MUST can provide confusion.  The intent of this sentence was to outline which of the path members (“prePath”, “postPath”, and “replacementPath”) to use when using path expressions and not to conflict with the OPTIONAL definition.  All of the path expression members are defined as OPTIONAL in the RFC, so this MUST needs be changed to a MAY to correct the confusion.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
Per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/

> The erratum is invalid or proposes a significant change to the RFC that should be done by publishing a new RFC that replaces or updates the current one. 

I believe it would be harmful to mark this as HFDU, because the normative requirements for implementations would be less clear, and the document might never be updated.



--------------------------------------
RFC9537 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-16)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response
Publication Date    : March 2024
Author(s)           : J. Gould, D. Smith, J. Kolker, R. Carney
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Registration Protocols Extensions
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

[regext] [Errata Rejected] RFC9537 (8006) RFC Errata System