On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 2013-02-07 03:48, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> ... >>> it references "RFC Errata, Errata ID 191, RFC 4051" without linking the >>> errata item, and does so normatively even though the document as a whole >> >> I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. The errata does appear in the >> references as >> >> [Errata191] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 191, RFC 4051, http://www.rfc- >> editor.org >> >> I have been told by an Area Director that this it the format that the >> RFC Editor likes. You can certainly find the Errata starting with that >> link and by just linking to the main ref-editor.org web page, it does >> not constrain the other structure of that web site. >> ... > > Indeed. But maybe it's time to restate that the "format the RFC Editor likes" is sub-optimal. The format *readers* like is a link that actually gets you directly to the erratum. Further, it is probably not correct to say that the RFC Editor "likes" it, just that they got used to using it. It would be better to submit the Internet Draft with the obviously-more-useful URL and then let them make it less useful, if they want. --Paul Hoffman