[rfc-i] comments on draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-00

Danny McPherson danny at tcb.net
Mon Jan 21 14:09:29 PST 2008

On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Turner, Sean P. wrote:

> Three comments on the draft/process:
> 1. Should we add a link to the errata on the http://www.ietf.org/ 
> iesg/1rfc_index.txt page? This way if somebody does download the  
> index and do a search on it then it's pretty clear that there's  
> errata.

I think this is probably worthwhile, in particular for existing
specifications.  Same applies to your point 2 below, for
that matter.
> 2. Likewise should we add a link on the WG pages?
> 3. I know RFCs never change, but with errata they kind of do - so  
> should we add a link/note in to the boilerplate either at the  
> beginning or at the end of the RFC.

This is somewhat akin to what BRC suggested and W3C employs today,
as outlined in the text in Appendix A.

    1.  Brian Carpenter has suggested an approach similar to that  
used by
        W3C: Add a URL to every published RFC that points to its errata
        (if any).

          For W3C examples, see:

             http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/ and


          They include the text:

             "Please refer to the <errata> for this document, which may
              include some normative corrections."

          where <errata> is a hyperlink to the list of all errata or a
          page that says:

             "There are no errata to this document yet."

        Similarly, a URL could be added to all (future) RFCs pointing to
        where the relevant errata are posted.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list