[rfc-i] feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Apr 4 13:55:50 PDT 2014
On 2014-04-04 21:52, Russ Housley wrote:
>> The following format is required when a reference to an errata report
>> is necessary:
>> [ErrNNNN] RFC Errata, Errata ID NNNN, RFC NNNN,
>> [Err1912] RFC Errata, Errata ID 1912, RFC 2978,
>> 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,
Again, that is misleading, as this confuses the RFC with the errata
about the RFC.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest