[rfc-i] Editorial wonkery - errata in -bis draffts

Martin J. Dürst duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sun Oct 18 17:51:02 PDT 2015


Hello Tim,

Sorry, but I don't understand your question. The goal is to fix 
everything so that the result is correct as far as we know it possible.

By "include errata references", where would you include these? They may 
appear in a section with detailed changes from previous RFC(s), but this 
section should be removed by the RFC Editor, so it doesn't make a big 
difference one way or another. In the overall summary of changes that 
should remain in the final published version, something like "Fixed 
known errata" should be enough.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2015/10/19 03:12, Tim Bray wrote:
> I’m working on 7159bis and one of the acknowledged errata points to two
> errors in, believe it or not, the references to the errata fixed in moving
> from 4627 to 7159.
>
> Which makes me wonder: For any value of XXX, should draft XXXbis include
> the errata references from XXX’s predecessor to XXX, or just the ones that
> are incorporated in moving from XXX to XXXbis?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list