Re: RFC Errata: when to file, and when not to

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Tue 07/Aug/2012 15:20:35 +0200 t.p. wrote:
> From: "Yoav Nir" <[e-mail]>
> 
>> Would it make it easier to find if they were called "notes" or
>> "corrections" instead of "errata"?
>
> 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:-).

Errata is an abbreviation of "errata corrige", the Latin for "error
correction".  Switching to the English translation would seem to be
consistent with English being the official publication language for RFCs.

> 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.

Although easy, doing that would require a noticeable amount of
editorial work.  In addition, notes, reasons, and explanations don't
have an obvious graphical rendition.  IMHO, knowing when and why an
errata was proposed and verified is an integral part of it.