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

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Mar 8 12:20:06 PST 2017


On 3/8/17 12:16 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2017, at 12:04, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/17 11:28 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It rather depends on when the document in question is approved for
>> publication and exactly what folks want changed. If we're just talking
>> about adding a direct pointer, that's possible. It looks like it is in
>> Last Call now, so it will be something of a race between it entering our
>> queue and our work to create those pretty, permanent URLs to errata.
>>
>> If you're talking about changing the XML tagging or the content ordering
>> in the errata reference, then no, that's not going to happen before the
>> doc is published.
>
> I was speaking of you having links, and then changing the references
> in the draft you get to point to those links before publication as an
> RFC.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>

Right. If we have the links ready by the time this draft is in the RFC
Editor queue, then yes, we can and will update the draft before
publication with those links. FWIW, I suspect the links will be ready by
then, but I don't want to commit and turn this into a fire drill in case
something goes wrong in testing or the draft gets to us sooner than we
expect.

-Heather



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list