[rfc-i] feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
housley at vigilsec.com
Mon Apr 7 08:41:01 PDT 2014
>>>> [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;
I do like the idea of using a URL that does not include .php, but I think that a reference by the unique errata number is fine.
More information about the rfc-interest