[rfc-i] References to errata
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Apr 11 14:22:16 PDT 2014
On 2014-04-11 19:26, Russ Housley wrote:
> 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.
It needs to label both.
The question is whether a
Erratum ID NNNN, RFC MMMMM
makes sense for something which is not a reference to RFC MMMM.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest