[rfc-i] References to errata
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sun Apr 13 21:13:34 PDT 2014
On 2014/04/12 06:22, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-04-11 19:26, Russ Housley wrote:
>> 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.
Yes. What about something like
Erratum ID NNNN for RFC MMMMM
or Erratum ID NNNN (applies to RFC MMMMM)
or anything else in that direction?
More information about the rfc-interest