[rfc-i] References to errata

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Apr 11 10:26:22 PDT 2014


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.

Based on the context from the earlier discussion, the RFCXXXX-NNNN was described as the NNNNth errata submitted against RFC XXXX.  My comments were made with that context in mind.

Regardless, I still think that the format needs to label the RFC number and the errata number.  I'm happy with:  [ErrNNNN]  RFC Errata, Erratum ID NNNN, RFC MMMM.

Russ


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list