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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Apr 4 13:55:50 PDT 2014


On 2014-04-04 21:52, Russ Housley wrote:
> Julian:
>
>>    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.

It seems we're talking about different things. A useful URI leads to the 
think being referenced, not to the RFC Editor's home page.

>> 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,
>                  <http:/www.rfc-editor.orgerrata_search.php?eid=NNNN>.

Again, that is misleading, as this confuses the RFC with the errata 
about the RFC.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list