[rfc-i] References to errata
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