[rfc-i] feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Apr 4 14:05:14 PDT 2014
>>> 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.
This section of the Style Guide is about referencing errata. The URL I offered goes to the errata, which is the thing being referenced.
For example: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php/?eid=1912
This provides the errata, and it includes a link to the RFC, which is RFC 2978 in this case.
More information about the rfc-interest