[rfc-i] References to errata

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Sun Apr 13 22:28:38 PDT 2014


>>> 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?

Either of these would be fin from my perspective.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list