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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Apr 5 00:26:38 PDT 2014

On 2014-04-04 23:05, 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.
> This section of the Style Guide is about referencing errata.  The URL I offered goes to the errata, which is the thing being referenced.

Sorry; I skipped over the URL, as further above you said "and I agree 
that the URL for the errata is appropriate." which I took to mean that 
you were ok with the proposal in the style guide.

So yes, that's a usable URL, and it has been suggested before. I believe 
the production center doesn't want to use that URL because of the PHP 
artefacts in it; I can understand that, but the right way to address 
this is to fix the URI format.

The other thing I'm unhappy with is


which kind of suggests that the thing being referenced *is* RFC XXXX. A 
less confusing way to look at this is to consider "Errata for RFC XXXX" 
to be a document series, thus to say:

   RFC XXXX Erratum NNNN


> 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 mailing list