[rfc-i] Comment on draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-00.txt

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Thu Sep 13 08:01:23 PDT 2007

Having authored RFC errata in the past, I've been thinking about the
visibility of errata once they're published. I think I've come to the
conclusion that the right option isn't yet in Appendix A - physically
attach the errata as an additional page at the end of the affected
RFC.  I know that RFCs aren't supposed to change, but this doesn't
change the original content at all, it's just adding an additional
page to the text file in the RFC edtior's repository. Since this is
presumably the root source for the mirrors, they should pick up the
errata-ized versions as well.

I like that better than option 1 because if EVERY RFC, whether or not
it has errata, has a link, and only a small number of RFCs have
errata, then people will quickly learn to ignore the link, since it'll
most likely just say that there's no errata available.

Option 2 is better than option 1, but people would have to learn to
look for the second file, but at least it'll turn up in RFC searches.

But 99% of the time, I get my RFCs just by typing the following in my browser:


and that wouldn't find the errata either, unless it's physically
attached or unless I explicitly look for it.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list