On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
On 2013-02-07 03:48, Donald Eastlake wrote:
...
it references "RFC Errata, Errata ID 191, RFC 4051" without linking the
errata item, and does so normatively even though the document as a whole
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. The errata does appear in the
references as
[Errata191] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 191, RFC 4051, http://www.rfc-
editor.org
I have been told by an Area Director that this it the format that the
RFC Editor likes. You can certainly find the Errata starting with that
link and by just linking to the main ref-editor.org web page, it does
not constrain the other structure of that web site.
...
Indeed. But maybe it's time to restate that the "format the RFC Editor likes"
is sub-optimal. The format *readers* like is a link that actually gets you
directly to the erratum.
Further, it is probably not correct to say that the RFC Editor "likes" it, just
that they got used to using it. It would be better to submit the Internet Draft
with the obviously-more-useful URL and then let them make it less useful, if
they want.
--Paul Hoffman