[rfc-i] feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Apr 4 12:52:18 PDT 2014


>   The following format is required when a reference to an errata report
>   is necessary:
>      [ErrNNNN]  RFC Errata, Errata ID NNNN, RFC NNNN,
>                 <http:/www.rfc-editor.org>.
>      [Err1912]  RFC Errata, Errata ID 1912, RFC 2978,
>                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
> Big -1. The RFC Editor should provide stable URIs for errata, and they should be used in the reference.

I believe that the errata references are stable, and I agree that the URL for the errata is appropriate.

> Also, the format is very misleading. The erratum is not the RFC, so this is a case where the notation deviates from what we use elsewhere.
> Can we make it "RFC Erratum RFCXXXX-NNNN", so we can drop the "RFC NNNN" entry?

I think that the entry should include both the RFC number and the errata number. Something like this:

     [ErrNNNN]  RFC Errata, Errata ID NNNN, RFC XXXX,


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list