[rfc-i] bug in errata list for draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Mar 8 12:16:15 PST 2017
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:
>>>> [Err3607] RFC Errata, "Errata ID 3607", RFC 4627,
>>>> [Err3915] RFC Errata, "Errata ID 7159", RFC 7159,
>>>> [Err4264] RFC Errata, "Errata ID 7159", RFC 7159,
>>>> [Err4336] RFC Errata, "Errata ID 7159", RFC 7159,
>>>> [Err607] RFC Errata, "Errata ID 607", RFC 4627,
>>> 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
>> 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
>> 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?
> 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
> queue and our work to create those pretty, permanent URLs to errata.
> If you're talking about changing the XML tagging or the content
> in the errata reference, then no, that's not going to happen before
> 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.
More information about the rfc-interest