[rfc-i] bug in errata list for draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Mar 8 11:28:42 PST 2017


On 7 Mar 2017, at 23:29, Julian Reschke wrote:

> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03#section-15.2>:
>
>>    [Err3607]  RFC Errata, "Errata ID 3607", RFC 4627,
>>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
>>
>>    [Err3915]  RFC Errata, "Errata ID 7159", RFC 7159,
>>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
>>
>>    [Err4264]  RFC Errata, "Errata ID 7159", RFC 7159,
>>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
>>
>>    [Err4336]  RFC Errata, "Errata ID 7159", RFC 7159,
>>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
>>
>>    [Err607]   RFC Errata, "Errata ID 607", RFC 4627,
>>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
>
>
> The newly added ones have an incorrect title.
>
> That said: I realize that this way to cite an erratum is the one 
> accepted by the RSE - other than that, it's brain dead, in that:
>
> a) it provides minimal help to actually get to the erratum (requires 
> following a link, opening a form, entering values), and
>
> b) is semantically incorrect, as the erratum of an RFC is not the same 
> thing as the RFC (but that's what the seriesInfo information is 
> claiming).

I agree with Julian on all counts here. A reader of this document who is 
not familiar with the IETF (and there will be *plenty* of those for this 
RFC) will not understand at all what is going on.

Heather: is it possible to change the format for references to errata 
now before this document is published?

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list