[rfc-i] Editorial wonkery - errata in -bis draffts
Martin J. Dürst
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sun Oct 18 17:51:02 PDT 2015
Sorry, but I don't understand your question. The goal is to fix
everything so that the result is correct as far as we know it possible.
By "include errata references", where would you include these? They may
appear in a section with detailed changes from previous RFC(s), but this
section should be removed by the RFC Editor, so it doesn't make a big
difference one way or another. In the overall summary of changes that
should remain in the final published version, something like "Fixed
known errata" should be enough.
On 2015/10/19 03:12, 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.
> 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?
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest