While this is more a clarification than an errata, having it verified would show it in the errata-inline view and as such might actually help future implementors to get this right. So I’m also not sure anymore; both could be fine.
From: QUIC <[email protected]> on behalf of Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 21. January 2022 at 09:57 To: Martin Thomson <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: NEW_CONNECTION_ID sequence numbers I think reporting errata was a good decision. However, looking at this discussion here I am bit confused on whether it should be “Verified” or “Hold for Document Update”. See the IESG statement on processing RFC errata for IETF stream https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/ . I am only considering guideline 1 and 2 for this errata. Any suggestion? //Zahed On 6 Jan 2022, at 02:52, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 12:30, Christian Huitema wrote: On 1/5/2022 3:22 PM, Kazuho Oku wrote: 2022年1月6日(木) 9:50 Lucas Pardue <[email protected]>: Erratum sounds good to me. it's an easier aide memoir than a post-it note pointer to a mailing list thread. +1. MT's text looks good to me. +1. https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-2dab3b36f98e5e89&q=1&e=2c69260a-f7ee-4213-a156-a1211bad8de2&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid6811
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
