[rfc-i] References to errata
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