[rfc-i] References to errata

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Apr 13 23:22:44 PDT 2014


On 2014-04-14 06:13, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> 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?

Something like that.

Either the document series is "RFC Errata", in which case the number 
could include the RFC the number is for, such as

    RFC Errata RRRR-EEEE

or we consider the errata for a given RFC a series, in which case we'd 
get something like

    RFC RRR Errata EEEE

Where I prefer the former, as it creates only one "document series".

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list