On 2025-11-19, at 17:39, Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote: > > Or perhaps better, report “errors” and then make “corrections”. We tend to > use erratum for both.
Actually, there is a (singular) "errata report” (the report about a potential mistake), and once verified, the “errata report” [we could use a better word for that once it is verified] with any updates and new notes becomes part of the “errata” for the RFC (as in “errata exist”). An unverified “errata report” is still that (we don’t know whether that actually describes “errata” or just missing information on the side of the reporter), like a crime report is to a crime. There is never a need for singular “erratum” in the language we use today (mostly because it is hard to count errata). Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
