[rfc-i] References to errata

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Apr 11 07:05:30 PDT 2014


On Apr 11, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:

> Paul and Julian:
> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Please?
> 
> this would require a rework of the errata database and it would make the existing references to errata useless.  While I see the elegance in your proposal, I do not think it is work the pain of a change.  The current approach works without confusion.

I think you misunderstand Julian's request (or I do). The current draft says:

4.8.6.5.  Referencing Errata

   The following format is required when a reference to an erratum
   report is necessary:  

      [ErrNNNN]  RFC Errata, Erratum ID NNNN, RFC MMMM.

      [Err1912]  RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1912, RFC 2978.

What Julian wants (and I agree with) is for it to instead say:

4.8.6.5.  Referencing Errata

   The following format is required when a reference to an erratum
   report is necessary:  

      [ErrNNNN]  RFC Erratum RFCXXXX-NNNN.

      [Err1912]  RFC Erratum RFC2978-1912.

--Paul Hoffman



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list