On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:17:15AM +0100, Gmail wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On 27 Jun 2017, at 04:29, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
And perhaps Stewart should look at the Errata for RFC 2119, if he has not
already.
It has been my long standing concern that for all practical purposes no one
look at errata! Indeed I doubt that many will until the RFC Editor appends
the verified errata to RFCs, or takes some similar approach with them.
Part of why I always use the https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcNNNN URLs is that
they do indicate when errata exist.
In this case I looked at the errata and could not see anything, what did I
miss?
Hmm, there are more errata here than I remembered; sorry for making you do
guesswork. I was thinking of EID 499, which adds "NOT RECOMMENDED" to
the list in the boilerplate, and is the first difference that idnits was
complaining about, if I was reading its output correctly.
At a different level maybe we need an xml tag that includes the 2119
boilerplate?
Seems useful.
-Ben