[rfc-i] Citing errata, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Mar 25 07:41:01 PDT 2014


On Mar 25, 2014, at 12:42 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-03-24 17:33, 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.
>> ...
> 
> Proposed format:
> 
>        [ErrYYYY]  RFC Errata, RFC Erratum RFCXXXX-YYYY,
>                   <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/YYYY>.
> 
> (...and set up the web server to rewrite/redirect <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/YYYY> to <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=YYYY> for now).

+1. Waiting for some future time to implement this means that the Style Guide RFC will either be wrong, or will have to be updated for this with the change being delayed until the RFC is published: both are unneeded silly states.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list