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

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:29:06 +0100

<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).

Best regards, Julian

(cc'ing rfc-interest)
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 11:28:42 -0800

> 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 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?

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:04:55 -0800

On 3/8/17 11:28 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 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.
>

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.

-Heather

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 12:16:15 -0800

> in the errata reference, then no, that's not going to happen before 

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

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:20:06 -0800

On 3/8/17 12:16 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:45:23 +0100

On 2017-03-08 21:20, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> ...
> ...

As this document is on next week's IESG agenda... When do you expect the 
errata link format to be defined?

Best regards, Julian