Thanks for explanation about errata, which must have been caused at least in
part by an erratum that I submitted recently.
Yours was one of many. Yours was actually one that I'd like to find a
way to fix -- a URL that needs to be updated.
In particular, the errata system is NOT meant to be used as an issue
tracker; please do not submit errata reports with the *intent* that they
be marked as "Held for Document Update", to be used as an issue
list later. We have mailing lists, issue trackers, and wikis for this
purpose.
Of course we have mailing lists, issue trackers, and wikis, but the problem
is that none of them are for RFCs. And if there's a tracker for a bis
version, it's not necessarily easy to find from the RFC.
Yes, and we're working on that. We're looking into ways of handling
this, to provide some sort of issue tracking for RFCs. Not sure yet
what the right way to do it is.
Barry