[rfc-i] feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Apr 4 14:44:47 PDT 2014
On Apr 4, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
>>> [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.
That's the way it currently works, but using those URIs in long-lived documents is a bad idea for at least two reasons:
- The RFC Editor might later switch away from using PHP
- They may actually make each erratum statically accessible
Using URI such as the one you proposed have been considered bad practices in the web community for over 15 years.
Instead, using a URI that simply names the erratum directly would be far preferable. Something like;
More information about the rfc-interest