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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Oct 18 23:36:47 PDT 2015


On 2015-10-18 20:12, 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.

Yep, caused by an error introduced by the production center when trying 
to enforce an absolutely silly citation policy.

> 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?

IMHO, it shouldn't include them at all. But yes, an appendix should list 
all important changes since the RFC that is being obsoleted.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list