I'm not precisely sure how this works as it is my first time reporting errata regarding an RFC, but do believe my claim warrants verification. Please get back to me on the process and possible verification.
Thank you for your time (all), Danny Rios On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:57 AM, RFC Errata System < rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6485, > "The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public > Key Infrastructure (RPKI)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6485&eid=3162 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Danny Rios <fortotalanonym...@gmail.com> > > Section: 9 > > Original Text > ------------- > 9. Normative References > > Corrected Text > -------------- > 8. Normative References > > Notes > ----- > Section 8 was incorrectly numbered as section 9 in final RFC. This was due > to the draft including a section 7 for "IANA Considerations," which was > later removed. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6485 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs-05) > -------------------------------------- > Title : The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in > the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) > Publication Date : February 2012 > Author(s) : G. Huston > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
