[rfc-i] References to Errata

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Mar 24 11:40:32 PDT 2014


On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-03-24 18:55, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>     The following format is required when a reference to an errata
>>>>> report
>>>>>     is necessary:
>>>>> 
>>>>>        [ErrNNNN]  RFC Errata, Errata ID NNNN, RFC NNNN,
>>>>>                   <http:/www.rfc-editor.org>.
>>>>> 
>>>>>        [Err1912]  RFC Errata, Errata ID 1912, RFC 2978,
>>>>>                   <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Big -1. The RFC Editor should provide stable URIs for errata, and they
>>>>> should be used in the reference.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, the format is very misleading. The erratum is not the RFC, so
>>>>> this
>>>>> is a case where the notation deviates from what we use elsewhere.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can we make it "RFC Erratum RFCXXXX-NNNN", so we can drop the "RFC
>>>>> NNNN"
>>>>> entry?
>>>> 
>>>> The errata system is slated for a pretty extensive overhaul as part of
>>>> the fallout from the upcoming format changes.  I suggest leaving the
>>>> Style Guide guidance as is for now, noting that it will change
>>>> significantly in the next 12-24 months.
>>> 
>>> -1. This is new text. Either don't have it at all, or get it right now.
>> 
>> I argue that the new text is, while not a complete answer to what we
>> need to do with errata, is still an improvement over what we have today.
> 
> I believe the first point I made needs to be addressed:
> 
> "Also, the format is very misleading. The erratum is not the RFC, so this is a case where the notation deviates from what we use elsewhere."
> 
> Also, why can't we define the stable errata URI right now?

A big +1 to both of Julian's points. 

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list