Status and Type of RFC Errata

Status Name	Description	Examples
Reported	The erratum has been reported but has not been verified.	List of reported errata Note: This list changes over time as errata are processed.
Verified	The erratum has been edited as necessary and verified as valid by the Stream-Specific Party (SSP) and/or the RFC Production Center (RPC). Note that errata that were submitted before November 2007 may have been verified by an author rather than a representative of the SSP. For the IETF stream: “The erratum is appropriate under the criteria below and should be available to implementers or people deploying the RFC.” – IESG statement on “IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream”	Erratum ID 1440 Erratum ID 1430
Held for Document Update	“The erratum is not a necessary update to the RFC. However, any future update of the document might consider it and determine whether it merits including in an update.” – IESG statement on “IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream”	Erratum ID 766 Erratum ID 1320
Rejected	“The erratum is invalid or proposes a significant change to the RFC that should be done by publishing a new RFC that replaces or updates the current one. In the latter case, if the change is to be considered for future updates of the document, it should be proposed using channels other than the errata process, such as a WG mailing list.” – IESG statement on “IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream”	Erratum ID 1508 Erratum ID 1521

Type Name	Description	Examples
Technical	error in the technical content (note that changes to the usage of the key words described in BCP 14 are considered technical)	Erratum ID 1456 Erratum ID 1593
Editorial	a spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not affect the technical meaning	Erratum ID 1557 Erratum ID 1579

Search RFCs