> 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