----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoav Nir" <ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "t.p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Alessandro Vesely" <vesely@xxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:58 AM 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"? <tp> Yes, corrections is what I see published in a newspaper to correct errata in previous editions. So far, it is the best word I can think of (but there might be a better one:-). In the html version of an RFC, it would be easy to provide old and new in an easy to compare format (as some editors do for I-D), not perhaps on permanent display but shown when 'errata' (or whatever name we choose) is toggled. Tom Petch </tp> Yoav