[rfc-i] References to errata

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Apr 14 07:37:12 PDT 2014


On Apr 13, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> 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".

I have a strong preference for the former: RFC Errata is a series, and each item of the series references an RFC.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list