[yam] Erratum 691 for RFC 3798 (Message Disposition Notification)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

I would like to ask the WG to recommend what to do with the following 
erratum:

> Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
> Date Reported: 2004-10-20
>
> Appendix A
>
>(1) disposition types
>=====================
>The dispositions "denied" and "failed" were removed from the
>document reflecting the lack of implementation or usage ...
>
>
>Now, the syntax production "disposition-type" in section 3.2.6. (on
>page 14) and section 7. (on mid-page 22) has been changed to read:
>
>    disposition-type = "displayed" / "deleted"
>
>This means that the RFC 2298 disposition types "dispatched" and
>"processed" have been removed from the syntax definitions as well!
>
>Thus, either Appendix A lacks mentioning these removals  OR  these
>items should not have been removed from the syntax definitions.
>
>Nevertheless, all these disposition types removed from the syntax are
>mentioned at many places throughout RFC 3798:
>
>o  "dispatched" :
>
>   - section 3.2.6. , final paragraph of the section on page 16
>   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
>   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18
>
>o  "processed" :
>
>   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
>   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18
>   - section 5. , 4th paragraph on page 18
>
>o  "denied" :
>
>   - section 2.1. , bottom of page 4
>   - section 2.1. , end of 3rd paragraph on page 5
>   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
>   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18
>   - section 6.2. , end of first paragraph on page 19
>
>o  "failed" :
>
>   - section 2.2. , middle of second-to-last paragraph on page 6
>   - section 2.2. , middle of second paragraph on page 7 (twice)
>   - section 2.2. , third paragraph on page 7 (twice)
>   - section 3.2.7. , in 2nd text line, on page 16
>                    (mis-spelled "failure" there)
>   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
>   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18
>
>All these places in the text deal with the issue/sending/generation
>of MDNs with the named deprecated disposition types (it would be
>acceptable to talk about what to do with *received* such disposition
>types for backwards compatibility with RFC 2298) !
>
>  
>
> It should say:
>
>[not submitted]
>  
>