[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"

Peter Koch pk at DENIC.DE
Mon Mar 31 10:05:56 PDT 2014

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 03:21:11PM +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:

> I know what you mean. But if you have a better way to help people find 
> the right reference, please tell us.

treat it like an out of print book.  And indeed one could use a library,
but so could one use an archive like way back.

> errata come from, after all). If the publisher became aware of the fact 
> that an update was necessary, they would indeed add this to the errata 
> (which can be just a leaflet added to the book). They want the book to 
> be useful for people who buy it anew, and wouldn't care too much how it 
> worked at the time of (first) printing.

The governing policy for books (prints, editions) isn't usually 'immutable',
so you're right, but the rules are slight;y different.

> Of course. For good reasons, I'm not trying to say "accept anything and 
> deal with problems later using the errata process". I'm just saying "in 
> case we get a prediction (about URI stability) wrong, errata are one way 
> to keep the reader up to date".

The case under dicussion used a side effect of the errata process: the
reported erratum was 'held for document update'.  Pragmatically probably
the Right Thing, but not necessarily to become documented process.

Back on track, the message was that predictions about URL stability
have 'issues'.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list