[rfc-i] References to errata
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.
More information about the rfc-interest