[NNTP] Errata 1707 and 1527 for RFC 3977

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Barry,

>> As I see that you are currently pretty active on errata for RFC 3977, I
>> believe it could be time to properly close the two remaining subjects that
>> weren't updated two years ago.
>
> Well, I've been trying to address "reported" errata that haven't been
> classified, not trying to spin up more work.  :-)  But still...

Many thanks to you!
And sorry for pushing a bit to hard...


>> * Could the following rationale be added to erratum 1707 for RFC 3977 so as
>> to explain the reason of the reject?
>
> I have asked the RFC Editor to help me with this, off list.  We'll get
> it sorted out.

Thanks !


>> * Could erratum 1527 for RFC 3977 be updated and its status changed to
>> "VERIFIED" so that it could be properly reviewed when the NNTP protocol
>> moves from proposed standard to draft standard?
>
> This one appears to be exactly what "held for document update" is for:
> It's flagged for review if/when the document is ever updated or
> advanced on the standards track.  That seems to be just what you want
> anyway, so there's no reason to change the status.

OK, I understand that the status should remain the same.
My concern was that we found out the wording to use for Section 3.4.2 
and two examples for Section 5.3.3 so as to fix the issue, and I do not 
know how not to lose the work done.  (No need to do the work twice, 
especially when the exact update is already known.)

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Mieux vaut allumer une bougie que maudire les ténèbres. » (Lao
   Zi)