[rfc-i] some thoughts about errata

[paul.hoffman at vpnc.org (Paul Hoffman)]

On Jul 12, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> Below are some thoughts about how the errata system could be made more useful; note that this isn't about the process but just about the information offered by the RFC Editor web site:
> 
> 1) Each erratum should have a stable URI that can be used for citations.
> 
> 2) For each RFC, there should be a machine-readable (*) HTTP resource (**) offering status information about the set of erratas present for that RFC. The minimal information about each erratum would be ID and/or URI, status, and the section number it applies to (when available). Extra points for date information and maybe a title.
> 
> (*) Optimally both JSON and XML. The former is good for JS running in browsers, the latter fits better into document production toolchains starting with XML anyway.
> 
> (**) That implies proper CORS settings so that browsers can actually get the information even when the origin of the document is different.

+1 to both. I recently had to ask for the whole errata database for a project I'm working on, and having these available instead would have been much better.

--Paul Hoffman