[VCARDDAV]Re: [Errata Rejected] RFC6350 (7856)

[Orie Steele <[e-mail]>]

I agree that the original text is unfortunate.

I searched the updates for this text, and it does not appear in them.

I'm following the process described here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20080730/

Can you propose a status and justify it based on this guidance?

This errata was initially reported as technical, but I believe it is
editorial, so I would also like to hear from the RFC Editor, do you believe
this should have been processed differently?

Regards,

OS, ART AD

On Fri, May 10, 2024, 8:19 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I disagree with the reason given for rejection.
>
> RFC9554 neither deprecates nor changes the original GENDER field in any
> way.
>
> Adding a new GRAMGENDER field does not address the issue I raised. Nor
> does the new PRONOUNS field. They both serve distinct purposes from the
> GENDER field.
>
> I also note that a previous errata was accepted to the same section to
> make the examples less irreverent.
>
> I've had some discussion via email with the author of RFC6350, who was
> seemingly in agreement that "(biological)" should not have been included in
> the first place.
>
> On May 11, 2024 2:20:34 AM GMT+05:30, RFC Errata System <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6350,
> >"vCard Format Specification".
> >
> >--------------------------------------
> >You may review the report below and at:
> >https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7856
> >
> >--------------------------------------
> >Status: Rejected
> >Type: Editorial
> >
> >Reported by: Ryan Castellucci <[e-mail]>
> >Date Reported: 2024-03-18
> >Rejected by: Orie Steele (IESG)
> >
> >Section: 6.2.7
> >
> >Original Text
> >-------------
> >   Special notes:  The components correspond, in sequence, to the sex
> >      (biological), and gender identity.  Each component is optional.
> >
> >Corrected Text
> >--------------
> >   Special notes:  The components correspond, in sequence, to the sex
> >      and gender identity.  Each component is optional.
> >
> >Notes
> >-----
> >The term "biological" in regards to sex does not have a widely agreed
> upon meaning, and is primarily used to discriminate against transgender
> people.
> >
> >Including the "biological" qualifier serves no purpose.
> > --VERIFIER NOTES--
> >Rejected per:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/
> >
> >Note this topic has been better addressed in recent revisions:
> >
> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9554#section-3.2
> >
> >--------------------------------------
> >RFC6350 (draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-22)
> >--------------------------------------
> >Title               : vCard Format Specification
> >Publication Date    : August 2011
> >Author(s)           : S. Perreault
> >Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> >Source              : vCard and CardDAV
> >Stream              : IETF
> >Verifying Party     : IESG
>