On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:29 AM, t.p. wrote: > When I Google RFCnnnn, I am sometimes directed to www.ietf.org, which is > not much help here. Other times, I am directed to tools.ietf.org, whose > format I find less friendly but which does have 'errata exist' in the > top right hand corner. However, I cannot click on that,
No, but two lines above it, there's an "Errata" link, which you can click. > unlike the > Obsoletes and Updates fields; but, more importantly, would your average > not-involved-in-standards audience know what errata are? For me, the > word comes from a classical education, before ever I got involved with > standards, and so is a commonplace, but is it used in the world at > large? I suspect not. Probably not, and neither is "bis". But what can you do about this? It's either allow updating of RFCs after publication, or have a list or corrections. Would it make it easier to find if they were called "notes" or "corrections" instead of "errata"? Yoav
